Are links as useful as they could be?

[guy at sun.UUCP]

> Since Berkeley was making directory entries variable length
> anyway, why didn't they just make symbolic links a variant
> type of directory entry, containing a string instead of an
> inode number?  They might be twice the size of a normal
> directory entry, but the time saved in not having to read
> another inode would be a big win.

Because that would have required non-trivial changes to programs that read
directory entries, in order that they understand this new type of directory
entry.  The 4.2BSD file system changed the format of directory entries, but
didn't really change their meaning; as far as an application reading the
directory is concerned, they are still <inumber, name> pairs.  Converting a
program to use the directory library is a mechanical, albeit not automated,
operation.  If this new "indirect" directory entry were introduced, the
conversion process would no longer be mechanical.
-- 
	Guy Harris
	{ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy
	guy at sun.com (or guy at sun.arpa)