> 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