From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:29:07 -0700
From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" <rvs@sun.com>
In-reply-to: <df49a7370904231053o261ee42doe563fbc8aa6ad83a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-id: <1240781347.25846.40.camel@goose.sun.com>
References: <df49a7370904231022g1ce3d3f9sf172b095898b9592@mail.gmail.com>
	<e7eb83fb6d7b24a5c0040aeab57a2aba@lsub.org>
	<df49a7370904231053o261ee42doe563fbc8aa6ad83a@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9p2010
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f268e0c8-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 18:53 +0100, roger peppe wrote:
> i wonder how many things would break if plan 9 moved to
> a strictly name-based mapping for its mount table...

What exactly do you mean by *strictly* ?

Thanks,
Roman.