[racket] testing impure stuff

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 <matthias at 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 <matthias at ccs.neu.edu>wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 23, 2013, at 5:12 PM, Manfred Lotz <manfred.lotz at 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
>>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20131223/f1f537f2/attachment.html>