On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 08:19:38PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > In principle, yes, though one man's porcelain is another man's plumbing, > > so determining the correct set is hard (and why bother if they are all > > hidden from mere mortals, anyway?). > > That would be a good reason not to bother determining which set to > preserve and remove them all then. It clearly argues for putting all in the same boat, yes (but obviously we disagree on which boat). > Sure you'll miss the dashed form for, say, one week? After that your > fingers should be retrained. Perhaps, although that doesn't address my other point, about non-bash program in the world which already does filename completion (in my case, I am specifically thinking about vim's ":r!", but surely emacs users must have a similar issue). But that is just talking about the disadvantages; you can argue that they are small, but they are clearly non-zero. More importantly, what are the _advantages_ of removing the hardlinks (and if you haven't read the other message I just sent you, I am talking not about putting hardlinks into a non-PATH directory, but about removing them entirely once they are already in that alternate directory)? If there aren't any advantages, or they are also small, then it makes sense to keep the hardlinks. -Peff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
