On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 23:19, Charles E. Campbell, Jr. <drc...@campbellfamily.biz> wrote:
> Nikolai Weibull wrote: >> No, I mean both O_EXCL (so that a file hasn't been created in between >> the time the original file has been renamed and the new one opened - a >> case so far not mentioned (or?)) and flock:ing it (but, as I >> understand from the man page, this doesn't seem to be very interesting >> either). > If you're talking Unix/Linux/etc -- flock is a cooperative file locking > mechanism, and processes which ignore it are not impeded. Just to make sure, did you read the part where I wrote "[flock] doesn't seem to be very interesting either"? I just want to know what your intentions were. Was it simply to fill in extra information about why I wrote that? Or did it seem like I didn't know what I was talking about and you wrote this reply to correct me? I'm finding that I get a lot of replys, especially at work, where I get the feeling that my mail hasn't really been read through. A classic is where you ask someone two questions and you get a reply with an answer for the first one. Or where you answer two questions and they restate the second one in their reply. Either way, I really don't think we have a problem to fix. I /want/ to be able to read what a program is writing to a file, mid-write. Generally, when a long process is executing I want to be able to tell what's being written. If you're writing to a file that another program critically needs /that's/ your problem. Not whether you made sure to set up some intricate locking mechanism or not. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
