I like that. Thanks, Robby
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > I'll adjust the docs to clarify that the permission change followed by > delete is a non-atomic sequence, with no attempt to revert a permission > change if the delete fails. > > Ending up with just the permission change is one possible outcome, and > I hope the clarification will also make other outcomes more apparent. > For example, it could happen that X's permission is changed, then X is > concurrently replaced by a new file again without write permission, and > the still-in-progress delete fails due to a permission failure after > all. > > At Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:31:37 -0600, Robby Findler wrote: >> Is it perhaps worth being more explicit about this possibility in the >> docs? I'm thinking of a sentence that says "when <the parameter> is >> set, delete-file may have only the effect of changing the permissions >> on the file" or similar. >> >> Robby >> >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: >> > At Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:07:08 -0500, Neil Toronto wrote: >> >> On 01/13/2015 02:00 PM, mfl...@racket-lang.org wrote: >> >> > 9f3c82c Matthew Flatt <mfl...@racket-lang.org> 2015-01-13 08:47 >> >> > : >> >> > | Windows: change `delete-{file,directory}` to attempt permission >> correction >> >> > | >> >> > | If a file or directory delete fails, try adjusting the file or >> >> > directory >> >> > | permissions to allow writes, then try deleting again. This process >> should >> >> > | provide a more Unix-like experience and make programs behave more >> >> > | consistently. >> >> > | >> >> > | A new `current-force-delete-permissions` parameter provides access to >> >> > | the raw native behavior. >> >> >> >> If I'm understand the new behavior correctly, it's possible for a >> >> failing `delete-file` to raise an exception, having changed the file to >> >> be writable. Do I have that right, and is that OK? >> > >> > That is correct. I'm not too happy about it, but I think it's a good >> > trade-off relative to the old behavior (as a default). >> > >> > _________________________ >> > Racket Developers list: >> > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev