On Fri, 26 May 2000, Kai Großjohann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "Daniel Pittman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 26 May 2000, Kai Großjohann
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I think that if you signal a continuable error, that would be best.
>> At least it's semi-obvious that something went wrong and all.
>
> Well, I've got to read up on continuable errors, then. Is
> `file-error' a continuable error?
Hmmm. Yes, in a quick browse through my XEmacs elisp. Raised by using
'signal.'
>> > (The code for using Perl to get the mtime of the file is not
>> > written yet.)
>>
>> Er... It weighs in at around 380 bytes though, which is kind of
>> heavyweight to ship every time we want to stat a file. That's a full
>> implementation of 'file-attributes' though, 'cept for processing the
>> mode into a string.
>
> I wonder if it might be useful to do this at shell-setup time? When
> the remote shell starts up, rcp.el finds out if there's a Perl. If
> there is, it could create a function on the remote end which runs Perl
> with the right arguments.
Ah, now *there* is a good idea. I must remember that. I can assume
Bourne shell characteristics, can't I? Hrm... does it ever select csh(1)
or it's descendants?
In any case, I think that using CPIO is a better plan than using Perl,
and I will have a look at using that some time this weekend, I hope.
Unless you are?
Daniel
--
I believe it is a form of decadence merely to be shocking. Shock works on the
nerves and not on the intellect and any idea which has to rely on pulling at
the nervous system is decadent.
-- Peter Ustinov
