From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dave <dave@dave.tj>
Subject: Re: [9fans] blanks in file names
In-reply-to: <108e7507893bab27df566b7cd0e795f0@plan9.bell-labs.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Message-id: <200207082121.g68LL9M24891@dave2.dave.tj>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Date: Mon,  8 Jul 2002 17:21:08 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c5db8f4c-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Okay, I see where you're going with this.  I fear I'm very badly
outnumbered here, and since I'm not about to implement the changes I
suggest, nobody else is likely to.  I guess we'll just have to keep
blanks out of our filenames. . .

 - Dave

BTW - If we change the system in a fundamental way once and for all,
we'll have a system (and a new set of conventions) that won't have to
be changed for another 50 years, with any luck.  Somebody's going to
want to encode full pathnames within nodes at some point in the future,
and our decision to disallow that will force people to invent roundabout
ways of doing so.


rob pike, esq. wrote:
> 
> > changing open(2), execve(2), etc. is
> > a requirement if we want a fundamental solution to the problem. 
> 
> Fundamental solutions should be applied only to fundamental problems.
> This is not a fundamental problem; far from it.  The means should be
> proportionate to the ends.
> 
> > > Don't you think that changing open, considering '/' in names, and
> > > similar stuff is just too much? 
> 
> Yes, it is, because to do so contradicts too many conventions that are
> integral to the system.
> 
> -rob
>