[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Moon%SCRC-TENEX@MIT-MC.ARPA, CWH%SCRC-TENEX@MIT-MC.ARPA, Wholey@CMU-CS-C.ARPA, Fahlman@CMU-CS-C.ARPA
- Subject: :IF-EXISTS :SUPERSEDE
- From: "Bernard S. Greenberg" <BSG%SCRC-TENEX@MIT-MC.ARPA>
- Date: Tue, 6 Dec 83 10:28 EST
- Cc: Common-Lisp@SU-AI.ARPA, Bug-Lispm%SCRC-TENEX@MIT-MC.ARPA, ROM%SCRC-TENEX@MIT-MC.ARPA, file-protocol%SCRC-TENEX@MIT-MC.ARPA, jwalker%SCRC-TENEX@MIT-MC.ARPA
- In-reply-to: The message of 5 Dec 83 23:12-EST from David A. Moon <Moon at SCRC-TENEX>
Date: Monday, 5 December 1983, 23:12-EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon at SCRC-TENEX>
It seems to me that what we must do is quite clear and there are no
choices to be made.
I "fixed" the Lisp machine, LMFS and COPYF to act in accordance with the
non-ambiguity you observe (patched). COPYF now works to extant,
numeric-versioned targets again.
The Common Lisp manual should contain the following quote from the new COPYF
(IF (EQ (SEND TO-PATHNAME ':VERSION) ':NEWEST)
under the description of :SUPERSEDE, and state that unless you
include it in your program, if you use :SUPERSEDE, you will
stop having a versionated file system.
Yes, it is consistent, and yes, I still believe there is a language
problem. I call to rememberance the PL/I addition operator......
Perhaps :IF-EXISTS :SUPERSEDE should be the default for a non-:NEWEST
version on output (as it used to be, de facto, around here), removing
the temptation to fall into the above hole.