From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Tolpin <dvd@davidashen.net>
Message-Id: <200403191437.i2JEbVZn001725@adat.davidashen.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] ls, rc question -- proposed change to rc/glob.c
In-Reply-To: <405B0000.8070509@swtch.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:37:31 +0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 39ad0b56-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

>
> continuing this...
>
> note how much more complicated the model gets if rc and ls
> (or perhaps dirreadall) start removing duplicates from the list.
> right now, it took you no time at all to find the existence of duplicates,
> and then once you realize they exist, you notice them everywhere.

I didn't propose ls to remove duplicates from the list. ls should not.
rc should from the list of globbing results. It is written in the manual.
>
> if the bulk of directory-processing programs remove duplicates

globbing is not directory processing.

> i'd rather live in the first world, where all programs agree.

echo x

and

echo x*

will bring different results for a directory with two entries
named x . The program does not agree with itself. Globbing has
little in common with directory reading.

> out in http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/lexnames.pdf.  there are
> plenty of others.
>
> p.s. amusingly enough, now we've filled in all the context necessary
> to read boyd's first post in this thread, where he posted that url
> and nothing else!

I had read that article, I do know the problem with symlinks,
and this problem is not related to the one I'm discussing.