[racket-dev] [plt] Push #29680: master branch updated

I like that.

Thanks,
Robby

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> I'll adjust the docs to clarify that the permission change followed by
> delete is a non-atomic sequence, with no attempt to revert a permission
> change if the delete fails.
>
> Ending up with just the permission change is one possible outcome, and
> I hope the clarification will also make other outcomes more apparent.
> For example, it could happen that X's permission is changed, then X is
> concurrently replaced by a new file again without write permission, and
> the still-in-progress delete fails due to a permission failure after
> all.
>
> At Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:31:37 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
>> Is it perhaps worth being more explicit about this possibility in the
>> docs? I'm thinking of a sentence that says "when <the parameter> is
>> set, delete-file may have only the effect of changing the permissions
>> on the file" or similar.
>>
>> Robby
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>> > At Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:07:08 -0500, Neil Toronto wrote:
>> >> On 01/13/2015 02:00 PM, mflatt at racket-lang.org wrote:
>> >> > 9f3c82c Matthew Flatt <mflatt at racket-lang.org> 2015-01-13 08:47
>> >> > :
>> >> > | Windows: change `delete-{file,directory}` to attempt permission
>> correction
>> >> > |
>> >> > | If a file or directory delete fails, try adjusting the file or directory
>> >> > | permissions to allow writes, then try deleting again. This process
>> should
>> >> > | provide a more Unix-like experience and make programs behave more
>> >> > | consistently.
>> >> > |
>> >> > | A new `current-force-delete-permissions` parameter provides access to
>> >> > | the raw native behavior.
>> >>
>> >> If I'm understand the new behavior correctly, it's possible for a
>> >> failing `delete-file` to raise an exception, having changed the file to
>> >> be writable. Do I have that right, and is that OK?
>> >
>> > That is correct. I'm not too happy about it, but I think it's a good
>> > trade-off relative to the old behavior (as a default).
>> >
>> > _________________________
>> >   Racket Developers list:
>> >   http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev