🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Sep17.141013.512@NCoast.ORG> davewt@ncoast.ORG (David Wright) writes:
>	Not only is the speed difference insignificant, but adding ANY kind of
>links would require changes to the operating sys. Links also have the problem
>of making the disk directory structure more confusing, and you can accidently
>squash files you didn't intend to. Say you have a link like "ln rm delete".
>Then you get a great rm port from unix and copy it to c: Now you just
>squashed your old version of delete. At least with aliases both files would
>exist, and you would just have to take out the alias from your startup-file...
>
>		Links: just say no

The behaviour you describe would probably not occur with the kind of links
that could be introduced to AmigaDOS.  The directory entry for "rm" would
give the path name for "delete".   When you copy a "great rm port from unix"
to your C: directory, you would wipe out the link without replacing "delete".

If you doubt this, treat the "copy src dst" operation as "delete dst",
"create dst", and "copy src dst".  Since AmigaDOS would have soft links,
the "delete dst" operation would destroy the link.  The following create
operation would create a new file.

Note the lack of symmetry between performing "copy GrmPFU C:rm" and performing
"copy GrmPFU C:delete" when "C:rm" is soft-linked to "C:delete".  A hard link
would act symmetrically.  But, as discussed before, adding hard links to
AmigaDOS is non-trivial.

Now, I suppose that the links being proposed for AmigaDOS could be soft
links with hard link semantics, but I'd not prefer this.

                Links:  Just say thanks!

1> list USENET:R#?
Directory "USENET:R#?" on Sunday 17-Sep-89
Richard Addison             Link ----r--- Today     14:15:16
 Soft-linked to a real person.
1> endshell