Symlinks and ..

[Eduardo Krell]

In article <10168 at alice.UUCP> ark at alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes:

>Suppose, for instance, that a directory has subdirectories foo
>and bar and a file in foo says  #include "../foo/x.h" .  It is
>important to be certain that the x.h included is really the one
>in the foo subdirectory.

Agreed, but that's not an excuse to justify the way ".." behaves with
symbolic links. I would achieve the same result by using sensible -I
arguments to cpp (and no "../" in #include statements).

I've never understood why -I switches are not as popular as they should.
They're very useful.
    
Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell  Internet: ekrell at ulysses.att.com