From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Markus Friedl <markus@openbsd.org>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] mv vs cp
Message-ID: <20011008171430.A26518@faui02.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <20011008144648.63B1319A0B@mail.cse.psu.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.21.0110081051010.11810-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0110081051010.11810-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>; from viro@math.psu.edu on Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 11:00:24AM -0400
Date: Mon,  8 Oct 2001 17:14:31 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 01f3b06e-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 11:00:24AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Actually, there's another fun issue here:
> 
> bind /foo/bar/baz /quux
> cd /quux/crap
> mv /foo/bar/baz/crap /foo/bar/crap
> cd ..
> 
> Where should we end up?  I have a somewhat reasonable answer for our
> semantics of bindings, but I don't see it for Plan 9 one.

there are probably many ways to mess with your own
namespace. but why should the system care? after
all it's your own process-local namespace.