On Wednesday 11 November 2009 17:13:04 Eric Blake wrote:
> Here's a thought (no immediate rush to implement, though). Should we
> expose various *at functions to shell scripting, by adding a new option to
> specify which fd to pass as the directory argument? This would allow the
> creation of
Eric Blake writes:
> Mike Frysinger gentoo.org> writes:
>
>> --at-fd might be a better explicit option without getting too verbose ?
>
> Indeed.
Note that the "at" in those functions is actually short for "attribute".
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58
Mike Frysinger gentoo.org> writes:
> > cd /tmp
> > mkdir -p sub
> > {
> > ln --at=4 -sf foo bar # call symlinkat("foo",4,"bar")
> > readlink --at=4 -m bar # call areadlinkat(4,"bar")
> > } 4< sub
> >
> > would output /tmp/sub/foo.
>
> isnt this possible today under linux by using /proc/s
On Wednesday 11 November 2009 18:13:41 Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Eric Blake writes:
> > Mike Frysinger writes:
> >> --at-fd might be a better explicit option without getting too verbose ?
> >
> > Indeed.
>
> Note that the "at" in those functions is actually short for "attribute".
i wasnt aware of
Mike Frysinger writes:
> On Wednesday 11 November 2009 18:13:41 Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Eric Blake writes:
>> > Mike Frysinger writes:
>> >> --at-fd might be a better explicit option without getting too verbose ?
>> >
>> > Indeed.
>>
>> Note that the "at" in those functions is actually short f
Eric Blake wrote:
> Here's a thought (no immediate rush to implement, though). Should we expose
> various *at functions to shell scripting, by adding a new option to specify
> which fd to pass as the directory argument? This would allow the creation of
> virtual directory change semantics without
