From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20980 invoked from network); 13 Nov 1998 09:14:34 -0000 Received: from math.gatech.edu (list@130.207.146.50) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 13 Nov 1998 09:14:34 -0000 Received: (from list@localhost) by math.gatech.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) id EAA05104; Fri, 13 Nov 1998 04:12:37 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 04:12:37 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <9811130855.AA19601@ibmth.df.unipi.it> To: Zsh Hackers Subject: Re: PATCH: 3.1.5: ``***'' symlink follow broken In-Reply-To: ""Bart Schaefer""'s message of "Thu, 12 Nov 1998 09:21:46 NFT." <981112092146.ZM11912@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 09:55:31 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson Resent-Message-ID: <"JsJC6.0.eF1.4W_Is"@math> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/4622 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu "Bart Schaefer" wrote: > So *unless* somebody knows of a reason not to do opendir() on something > that isn't a directory, I think Geoff's patch is actually better [on the > assumption that a failed opendir() is faster than a successful stat()]. I thought about it some more last night and came to this conclusion too. Only if you can test the number of subdirectories, and hence prune empty subdirectories, is the stat() worthwhile. I'm very tempted by Geoff's second suggestion, though. > Late last night I was of the opinion that `closure' mattered more than > did `q->follow', but I've since revised that opinion. I think it's written so that `closure' matters as little as possible when it's analysing individual directories. -- Peter Stephenson Tel: +39 050 844536 WWW: http://www.ifh.de/~pws/ Dipartimento di Fisica, Via Buonarroti 2, 56100 Pisa, Italy