bug#60146: closed (file-exists-in-trash-p needs better name or semantics)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 17 Dec 2022 15:55:43 -0800
with message-id <08f9aafc-34a4-de76-df7c-fb28d9bbc607@cs.ucla.edu>
and subject line Re: bug#60146: file-exists-in-trash-p needs better name or 
semantics
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #60146,
regarding file-exists-in-trash-p needs better name or semantics
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
60146: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=60146
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> file-exists-in-trash-p needs better name or semantics
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Fri, 16 Dec 2022 21:17:13 -0800
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0
>
>
>
>
> The recently-added function (file-exists-in-trash-p FILE) is poorly 
> named since it's not really related to trash - it's simply checking for 
> the existence of a directory entry named FILE.
>
> How about extending file-exists-p instead? (file-exists-p FILE t) would 
> be like (file-exists-p FILE) except it would not follow symlinks. This 
> extension can be implemented via a single system call on POSIX systems, 
> and this would be more efficient and would avoid a race in the current 
> implementation of file-exists-in-trash-p. (Though of course pretty much 
> any use of this new function makes one vulnerable to races....)
>
> If extending file-exists-p is too much, at least please rename 
> file-exists-in-trash-p to something like files--exists-nofollow-p, to 
> indicate that it's private to files.el and to say better what it means.
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#60146: file-exists-in-trash-p needs better name or semantics
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sat, 17 Dec 2022 15:55:43 -0800
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.2
>
>
>
>
> On 12/17/22 12:09, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > If you can verify that it works in the scenario of bug#59986, I'm okay
> > with this change.
>
> Thanks, I checked that the patch works in that scenario (dangling 
> symlink in the trash directory), and installed it. Closing the bug report.
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---