2 ms·
What about hard links dude? Symlinks are fine because they're "fake", but it's not like a file must have a single canonical location.
by Y_Y 3y ago
What about hard links dude? Symlinks are fine because they're "fake", but it's not like a file must have a single canonical location.
- andsens 3y agoIn that case whoever is linking the script is “breaking” it, I’d say. There’s stuff that is simply outside the responsibilities of the script/maintainer. If you start worrying about that for “simple” scripts, the logic for handling that is quickly going to outgrow the initial logic itself.
- account42 3y agoBesides, hard links don't have a canonical target, they are all equally correct names for the file. So even if the script author wanted to support the same technique for hard links there is no reasonable way to do it.
- rollcat 3y agoI think symlinks (or hard links, doesn't matter) are the actual problem here. It is actually completely OK for your code to make certain assumptions about how it's going to be invoked, and otherwise break (loudly, and in an obvious way, if possible).