If you don't have permissions, you can't recur and the current implementation throws an error w/o recourse to a fix. As Manfred points out, this is a 'fair weather' function. A real implementation should resist such external mishaps. But I also agree w/ you about the parameter. It would generalize this situation -- Matthias
On Dec 23, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > Perhaps in-directory can take an optional parameter that controls whether or > not to recur? > > Robby > > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> > wrote: > > On Dec 23, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Manfred Lotz <manfred.l...@arcor.de> wrote: > > > I think in-directory should be fixed in the long run. > > Agreed. -- Matthias > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
