On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 10:46:08PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 03/24/07 22:36, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 10:33:40PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > >> On 03/24/07 22:19, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > >>> Out of curiousity, why do you say that it is a bad design? > >> Destroying something to save it? > >> > > It seems like it makes perfect sense (in the temporary file case, not in > > the destroying a village case). If you know that the operating system > > will keep the file data allocated and allow you use the file as normal > > until you close it, then why not unlink it? It prevents collisions with > > naming > > That's what, in python syntax, os.tmpfile() is for. > Right. I have used that before.
> > and minimizes a vulnerability. > > A rich-enough file protection and locking protocol is supposed to > handle that for you. > Well, C is a very austere language. You have to implement lots of functionality yourself. I mean, it doesn't have garbage collection and people don't complain so much about it. Or maybe they do, but they realize that such functionality needs to be implemented somehow, so some language must lack it. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
