On 16.02.2007 18:15, Daniel Berger wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2:16 am, Robert Klemme <shortcut... / googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 15.02.2007 23:25, robertlafe... / comcast.net wrote:> Sorry, there was a typo in my e-mail.  One should be "/tmp" and the other should be "/tmp/"
>>
>>  > And yes, I am using this on Mac OS X where /tmp is a symlink to
>> /private/tmp.
>>  > Should Ruby care about symlinks?  IMHO, it should work whether or not
>> it is a symlink or not.
>>
>> That's not Ruby's fault - it's the way filesystems work on Unix.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> No, it's because of this line in find.rb:
> 
> if File.lstat(file).directory? then
> 
> Since File.lstat reports on the symlink itself, and a symlink isn't a
> directory, it never enters this block.
> 
> Changing it to just File.stat would make it behave as the OP expected.
> Whether or not this is what it ought to do in the first place is
> debatable.
> 
> If nothing else we should add a note in the documentation about
> symlinks.

My point was that both behaviors have their place and changing it to 
always follow does not improve the situation.  Actually I find the 
current behavior (not following symlinks) better as a default so there 
should be an option to do follow if needed (command line "find" does it 
similarly).

Kind regards

	robert