On 12Feb2012 18:57, "Martin v. Löwis" <[email protected]> wrote:
| Am 12.02.2012 17:04, schrieb Antoine Pitrou:
| > Le dimanche 12 février 2012 à 16:52 +0100, "Martin v. Löwis" a écrit :
| >>> Why hard links? Symlinks are much more introspectable. When looking at
| >>> a hard link I have no easy way to know it's the same as whatever other
| >>> file in the same directory.
| >>
| >> There actually *is* an easy way, in regular ls: look at the link count.
| >> It comes out of ls -l by default, and if it's >1, there will be an
| >> identical file.
Yeah! Somewhere... :-(
| > This doesn't tell me which file it is
|
| Well, you didn't ask for that, it does "to know it's the same as
| whatever other file" nicely :-)
Sure, at the OS level. Not much use for _inspection_.
| As Charles-François explains, you can use ls -i for that, which isn't
| that easy, but still straight-forward.
If the hardlink is nearby. Of course in this example it (almost
certainly?) is, but it needn't be. A symlink is a much better solution
to this problem because:
- usability - "ls -l" shows it to the user by default
- practicality:
With a symlink, to find out what it attaches to you examine the
symlink.
With a hardlink you first examine a fairly opaque numeric attribute of
"python2", and _then_ you examine every other filename on the system!
Admittedly starting with "python2.*" in the same directory, but in
principle in other places. Arbitrary other places.
IMO a symlink is far and away the better choice in this situation.
Cheers,
--
Cameron Simpson <[email protected]> DoD#743
http://www.cskk.ezoshosting.com/cs/
I need your clothes, your boots, and your motorcycle.
- Arnold Schwarzenegger, Terminator 2
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
