From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Thu,  9 Mar 2000 14:44:35 +0000
From: Roman Shaposhnick vugluskr@unicorn.math.spbu.ru
Subject: [9fans] Re: 9p question
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9edbd278-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025
Message-ID: <20000309144435.Ac5WL-Baiy38MwjWMg2kYlGA7rxCHyD13bVTqNThO1w@z>

On Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:12:43 GMT, forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>>I can always issue as many Tstat as I would like. What wrong with
>>>letting length represent the number of directory entries  ?
>
>many interesting directories are generated on-the-fly (indeed that's the
>normal case for devices).   any size that could be
>given for any directory is at best a hint, and it is hard to see how to put
>it to any essential use.

 Just like with normal or, well, quasi-normal files. There is no any doubt
that this can be done just the same way. Or can not ?

>consequently, having to run through the generation
>code just to produce a less-than-useful size seems a bit of a waste
>of time.

 Yes, I understand your point, but my question was why the behavior is
inconsistent? I do not believe that for most files served by the file server
the size is zero, just because it seems to be so easy and natural to
fill the proper field with the file size when it is known and to put
there a special value when it is not.

>i made the extra effort in an operating system of my own,
>but i didn't find it especially worthwhile.

 It is not, especially when it is an exception, not the rule. IMHO, as always.

>it's worth noting that there are plenty of files in Plan 9 that can be read
>but have length set to zero (for much the same reason).
>the conventions are not completely consistent in practice,
>possibly caused by differing authors or changing
>priorities: compare {ls -l /dev/time} and {ls -l '#r/rtc'}.

  May be that's the answer. Different attitudes. I think this can explain
a lot. But I hope that there is a different answer. Will wait. :)

Roman.