From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+usenet@becket.net>
Message-ID: <874rp8hl04.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
References: <87eloeax62.fsf@becket.becket.net>, <Pine.GSO.4.21.0110090517410.15050-100000@weyl.math.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] mv vs cp
Date: Tue,  9 Oct 2001 15:58:47 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0338f43e-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

viro@math.psu.edu (Alexander Viro) writes:

> Again, I've really been there and done that.  It wasn't pretty and I
> would be much happier if rename() couldn't change the topology.  We
> couldn't do that since it would break a lot of userland stuff;  Plan 9
> has a luxury of dropping annoying crap and being able to find and fix
> resulting breakage in userland.  In this case crap is not there in the
> first place, so introducing it would cause a lot of ugliness in the kernel
> for no good reason.

I'm not expert in Plan 9, but it seems to me that it breaks it for the
user.

Is this just an example of the "New Jersey" preference for simplicity
of implementation over the "Cambridge" preference for correctness and
completeness?