Re: [9fans] blanks in file names

[Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>]

> The "offending" program in this case is the program that's so much simpler
> because it's using the new kernel interface rather than the old one.

I don't think it would be simpler; I think it would be more
complicated.  You're replacing a simple, textual representation of an
object with a binary representation; you have to have some way to do
canonicalization in the common case, but even that path is thrwat with
danger.

> Nothing has to be rethought because all my proposed changes do is restore
> the strict seperation between nodes in a filename (something UNIX -
> and therefore Plan 9 - likes to rely on).

But they change an already well-established interface.  Have you
thought through the implications of this, in all their macabre glory?
What you propose--changing the most basic interface for opening a file
in a system where everything looks more or less like a file--has huge
implications.  And all this just to support a strange edge-case, which
is adequately solved by substitutions in the filename.  Sure, it's not
perfect in some weird pathological case, but how often is this going to
come up in practice?  Remember: Optimize for the common case.

> There's plenty of experience with other systems working on linked lists
> (including a huge amount of kernel code in my Linux box that I'm typing
> from, ATM).  Most of the problems with linked lists have been pretty
> well documented, by now.

It's the huge amount of kernel code that Plan 9 is trying to avoid.

Being forced to conform to a lot of external interfaces *will* kill the
system.

Besides, the point Nemo was trying to make umpteen posts ago was that,
yes, you can roll back changes using the dump filesystem, which gives
you temporal mobility.  He is right.

	- Dan C.