On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 03:10:10PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: ... > [...] so old thing is always supposed to be > destroyed (of course it's a matter of implementation or conditions in > which moment this destruction takes place). > > So, 'replace with itself' is simply ambiguous: we can always delete the > object first, to prepare the place for replacement, and find there is > nothing to do after this - and it's probably not what somebody wanted.
As a matter of fact, the moment of destruction doesn't even matter: assuming the replaced thing is destroyed in all 'common' cases, doing this at the end isn't probably wanted as well - and skipping this action makes an exception - what IMHO proves the concept is at least inconsistent. Jarek P. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
