Beman, Beman Dawes wrote:
"Thomas Witt" <witt@acm.org> wrote in message news:d58cm5$mso$1@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.
I considered that briefly, but rejected it because status() on POSIX would then require two calls; one to stat() and one to lstat().
Hmmm .. mildly convincing.
There is also a nice simplicity in the current design; the functions always returns a value with one and only one flag set.
In this case the fact that it is a bitmask type seems to be kind of misleading. Isn't the whole point of a bitmask type to be able to have multiple flags set at once?
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.
I am up in the air about it. On the one hand it seems wrong to me to have a suboptimal interface only because posix has one, on the other hand performance might be an issue. Thomas -- Thomas Witt witt@acm.org