> rmind@ points out that it's possible to create zero-length symlinks. Does this mean "symlinks with zero-length names" or "symlinks with zero-length link-to strings"?
If you mean the former, then I agree, but the object's being a symlink has nothing to do with it. The rest of this email assumes you mean the latter. > As zero-length symlinks aren't sensible, this should probably be > prohibited. Does anyone see any reason they shouldn't be? I think "not sensible" is not a good enough reason to prohibit something. "Unix does not prevent you from doing stupid things because that would also prevent you from doing clever things" - it seems to me at least moderately likely that someone will (or even has) come up with some clever use for a zero-length link-to string. Indeed, I'd say someone already has. /etc/malloc.conf is a symlink whose link-to string is not normally used for pathname interpretation; it would totally make sense to have /etc/malloc.conf be a symlink with a zero-length link-to string. (I think in the current implementation that would be equivalent to not having /etc/malloc.conf at all, but that may not remain true and may not be true of other such cases.) /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [email protected] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
