On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Robert Klemme wrote:

> 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

my alib library exports this

   alib.util.find('.', :follow => true) do |the_fully_expanded_path|
     ...
   end

gem install alib

-a
-- 
we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being better.
simply reflect on that.
- the dalai lama