On 2010-05-04, Charles <c.sand...@deletethis.bom.gov.au> wrote: >> I don't see how it's inelegant at all. Perhaps it's >> counter-intuitive if you don't understand how a Unix filesystem >> works, but the underlying filesystem model is very simple, regular, >> and elegant. >> >>> but probably makes some bit of the OS's job slightly easier and is >>> usually good enough in practice. Pragmatism is a bitch sometimes. :-) >> > > I agree that the Unix file system is quite elegant, but can be > counter-intuitive for people who are used to the "one file, one name" > paradigm.
I guess I've been using Unix for too long (almost 30 years). I don't think I was consciously aware of a "one file, one name" paradigm. Is that a characteristic of Dos, Windows or Mac filesystems? > [...] > In the OP's case, references to the directory have been removed from > the file system, but his process still has the current working > directory reference to it, so it has not actually been deleted. When > he opens "../abc.txt", the OS searches the current directory for ".." > and finds the inode for /home/baz/tmp, then searches that directory > (/home/baz/tmp) for abc.txt and finds it. Exactly. I probably should have taken the time to explain that as well as you did. One forgets that there are a log of new Unix users who've never been taught how the filesystem works. -- Grant -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list