I don't think the proposed fix would "resist" in this manner. The directory could be deleted between the time you check for its existence and when you ask for its contents.
Robby On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu>wrote: > > 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
