Where did read-symlink go?
(no sender)
(31 Jul 2019 18:40 UTC)
|
Re: Where did read-symlink go?
John Cowan
(31 Jul 2019 18:47 UTC)
|
Re: Where did read-symlink go?
hga@xxxxxx
(31 Jul 2019 19:00 UTC)
|
Re: Where did read-symlink go?
John Cowan
(31 Jul 2019 19:02 UTC)
|
Re: Where did read-symlink go?
hga@xxxxxx
(31 Jul 2019 19:16 UTC)
|
Re: Where did read-symlink go?
Lassi Kortela
(31 Jul 2019 19:05 UTC)
|
Re: Where did read-symlink go?
Lassi Kortela
(31 Jul 2019 19:02 UTC)
|
Re: Where did read-symlink go? (no sender) (31 Jul 2019 20:20 UTC)
|
Re: Where did read-symlink go?
John Cowan
(31 Jul 2019 20:30 UTC)
|
Re: Where did read-symlink go?
hga@xxxxxx
(31 Jul 2019 20:47 UTC)
|
Re: Where did read-symlink go? Göran Weinholt 31 Jul 2019 20:20 UTC
John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org> writes: > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:40 PM Göran Weinholt <xxxxxx@weinholt.se> wrote: > > > The read-symlink procedure seems to have disappeared in commit eadc8f82, > > "editorial and minor functional changes", right after draft 3. Was that > > intentional? There is no way to have the same functionality if that > > procedure is not provided. > > It's not clear to me that it's actually useful in typical programs, > unless you want to write your own ls -l implementation. Googling > around shows no one explaining the purpose of it. You'd need read-symlink to create a tar archiver. Providing it is also more in line with Scheme tradition, because with read-symlink you can implement real-path, but with real-path you cannot implement read-symlink. The Linux kernel provides readlink() and not realpath(). While it's probably good to provide real-path as well, I would prefer removing that one if only one could be kept. Regards, -- Göran Weinholt https://weinholt.se/