From: Dylan Nicholson (dylan_nicholson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-28 09:36:57
--- Ross Smith <r-smith_at_[hidden]> wrote: > Dylan Nicholson wrote:
> The essential point I'm trying to make is that a test that can't be
> trusted is useless. Unless we can have an is_readonly() test that's
> _guaranteed_ to always give the right answer, there's no point in having
> it at all.
Perhaps, but I would still expect to be able to get at the functionality of
access, limited as it may be. To be honest I don't understand why access is so
broken (and I've since read similar comments recognising its limited
usefulness) but it still suffices quite well for a large number of existing
applications. Whether is_readonly is the right name I don't know.
What would be interesting to know is how many boost users have written code
that needs to know if a file is writable or not, and happily (if wrongly)
assumed access() did the job. I will admit to being personally responsible for
commercial software used by thousands internationally falling into this
category. So far as we know it has never produced unexpected behaviour.
http://www.sold.com.au - SOLD.com.au Auctions
- 1,000s of Bargains!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk