From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-03 19:25:52
"Thomas Witt" <witt_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:d58cm5$mso$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
>
> Hmm, what's the benefit of having symlink_status() and status() ? Wouldn't
> one function suffice that sets the symlink flag when a symlink is
> encoutered on the way. I.e.
>
> symlink_flag | directory_flag
>
> identifies a symlink pointing to a directory
>
> symlink_flag | not_found_flag
>
> identifies a symlink pointing to a non existing file/dir
>
> and so on ...
I considered that briefly, but rejected it because status() on POSIX would
then require two calls; one to stat() and one to lstat().
There is also a nice simplicity in the current design; the functions always
returns a value with one and only one flag set.
Neither of those are really killer arguments, so if others think it would be
better to have a single status() function, I'd like to hear their arguments.
Thanks,
--Beman