From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1240781347.25846.40.camel@goose.sun.com>
References: <df49a7370904231022g1ce3d3f9sf172b095898b9592@mail.gmail.com>
	<e7eb83fb6d7b24a5c0040aeab57a2aba@lsub.org>
	<df49a7370904231053o261ee42doe563fbc8aa6ad83a@mail.gmail.com>
	<1240781347.25846.40.camel@goose.sun.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:32:19 +0100
Message-ID: <df49a7370904270032x467c6c4ax586764793257cc72@mail.gmail.com>
From: roger peppe <rogpeppe@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] 9p2010
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f30d0a5e-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

2009/4/26 Roman V. Shaposhnik <rvs@sun.com>:
> On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 18:53 +0100, roger peppe wrote:
>> i wonder how many things would break if plan 9 moved to
>> a strictly name-based mapping for its mount table...
>
> What exactly do you mean by *strictly* ?

i mean using pathnames rather
than using qids. "strictly" because a hybrid
approach may be possible.

doing this would mean that, for instance,

  bind -a /foo/bar /tmp/a
  mv /tmp/a /tmp/b
  ls -l /tmp/b

would not list the contents of /foo/bar.

what else might break?