umask per directory?

[Moderator, John Quarterman]

Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 01:12:07 pst
>From: pyramid!decwrl!mips!mash (John Mashey)

Re: having followed this discussion somewhat randomly, I thought that
was one the ways that people were casting this, and so cast the example
that way.  Perhaps a better way to state the general case is:
	a) one needs to specify the state vector associated with each
	object in the system.
	b) One must specify how operations depend on the state of the objects.
	c) Any time one adds a new item to an existing state vector,
	one should carefully check to see that it is needed, and is as general
	as makes sense, not just a special case.
	d) ANy time one adds an enitre new state vector, or a completely
	new kind of interaction with operations, like c), but more so.

Certainly, I don't feel very strongly about any of this, EXCEPT that
this feels to me like a wart of the following nature:
	a) It is a special case of potential value.
	b) It is a special case of some general case that has not yet been
	expressed.
	c) It is not of such critical nature that it should be implemented
	without better understanding the general case.
	d) If somebody really wants to, they can get almost any of
	the proposed effects by using 1) tweeked creat(2) Interface routine,

	2) environ variable checked by the new creat()
	3) a dot-file with umask value left in each directory.
The questions is: does anybody who has the source to do this have enough
interest to try this out?

Volume-Number: Volume 5, Number 42