From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!ima!think!barmar
From: barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada/UNIX(tm) and the NAME function
Message-ID: <34974@think.UUCP>
Date: 30 Dec 88 17:35:47 GMT
References: <8812281638.AA00722@aries>
Sender: news@think.UUCP
Reply-To: barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin)
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <8812281638.AA00722@aries> emery@mitre.org writes:
>...  If the pathname isn't absolute, call Unix.getcwd, ...
>Note that there is NO requirement to walk the directory chain.

How do you think Unix.getcwd works?  Most Unix implementations don't
remember the character string used to set the working directory.
Getcwd() walks the directory tree.

Does the specification of the NAME function say how it should interact
with asynchronous renamings?  Must it always return the current name,
or can it just return the name used to open the file?  This goes
beyond Unix, since most OSes allow files that are open to be renamed.
However, if the current name must always be returned, it would be
difficult for Unix to support this.


Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar