From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Tolpin <dvd@davidashen.net>
Message-Id: <200403190532.i2J5W2MU097145@adat.davidashen.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] ls, rc question
In-Reply-To: <96e06cebf14ac0ed02a5390ac3dd1dbf@swtch.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:32:02 +0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 379b24e2-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> if you want, you can think of this as a bug in read(2):

In fact, I think both read(2) and stat(2) are OK.

The bug (or just inexact wording in the manual for read(2)).

But then either globbing should work differently (and looking
at the code in rc, i think it is easy to make it work as with union);
or the manual for rc should be changed as well.

Besides, then why bind(,,MBEFORE|MAFTER) is said to create a 'union' 
then? It is very confusing too. It does not. It creates a list, 
and name-oriented calls ([a-z]*stat, open) are restricted to only retrieve 
the first element in the list. Other calls can still traverse the list.


> that it doesn't really break much (you've found about
> all of it!) to leave it as is, and that it results in things
> like /bin/ls giving interesting information about the union.

Do you think that rc globbing returning as many identical words
as there are directory entries with the same name is in any
way useful too?