> While on the surface, renaming unlink() may seem like
> a not-too-bad-idea, in reality it has many bad parts:
> ...
5. Other operating systems/ file systems have, or could have
hypothetically, the same operation. I.e. just because NTFS
doesn't have multiple links now (or does it?) doesn't mean
it won't in the future.
--
John Porter
- RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone Perl6 RFC Librarian
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone skud
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left a... Ariel Scolnicov
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone John Porter
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone Bart Lateur
- RE: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone Myers, Dirk
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone Spider Boardman
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left a... Damien Neil
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be le... Spider Boardman
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should ... Tom Christiansen
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be le... Tim Jenness
- Re: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone Russ Allbery
- RE: RFC 29 (v1) unlink() should be left alone Fisher Mark
