On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 14:42, MArk Finlay wrote:
> > Let me reclarify my proposal into "Lets do what the shell does by
> > default" as pretty much that is what people are expecting.
>
> I agree with you, but would reprase to say "Lets do what the shell does
> by default" because that's the right way to do it.
>
> Syslinks are not windows shorcuts. They are entities in themselves and
> should be treated as such.
I can't see any difference between a Windows shortcut and a Unix
symlink; could you please elaborate?
FWIW, on OS X they have Unix symlinks, and the behavior is exactly the
same of the old Nautilus (except that they don't have an up arrow
button; rather, they have an drop-down menu with the list of ancestor
folders).
Note that if you leave the way it was the Unix shell guy can still
achieve what he wants:
* If he got into a folder through a symlink in Nautilus, he can go
back to where you were before by using the left arrow ("cd ..").
* If he wants to go to a folder using a specific path possibly
containing symlinks, he still can (and in that case, the up
arrow button will work just like in the shell).
--
Ettore Perazzoli <ettore ximian com>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part