From: Vincent L. <vi...@vi...> - 2001-01-30 21:50:30
|
In article <200...@na...>, Diego Zamboni <za...@ce...> wrote: > I still believe that the correct behavior should be to copy the contents of > the file. After all, that's what links (symbolic or hard) are for: to > provide you an alternative access point to the file. When I open a symlink > using vi, or any other program, it's the contents of the destination file > I get, not some representation of the link. Why should cp be different? I agree. A "copy" operation is an operation on the contents of a file. But how about a "move" operation? Sometimes it a hard link + unlink (and no need to read the file) and sometimes a copy + unlink. How should it behave on a symlink? -- Vincent Lefèvre <vi...@vi...> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> - 100% validated HTML - Acorn Risc PC, Yellow Pig 17, Championnat International des Jeux Mathématiques et Logiques, TETRHEX, etc. Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA |