John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 02:23:54PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote:
>
>> This version of is_readonly is racy. So for win32 we should try
>
| All versions of is_readonly() are racy, it's implicit in the API.
Not if checking readonly is the only thing you want to do?
We shouldn't have to call readonly a lot anyway. The only place where
I think it is "needed" is for informing the user that the loaded file
is read only. For writing, we should just try to write.. and fail if
we cannot do so.
--
Lgb
