scsh-hackers
[Top] [All Lists]

[Scsh-hackers] [ scsh-Bugs-408220 ] no-directory vs. not-directory

To: noreply@sourceforge.net
Subject: [Scsh-hackers] [ scsh-Bugs-408220 ] no-directory vs. not-directory
From: noreply@sourceforge.net
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:55:19 -0800
List-id: Discussion among the implementors <scsh-hackers.lists.sourceforge.net>
Sender: scsh-hackers-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Bugs item #408220, was updated on 2001-03-13 07:48
You can respond by visiting: 
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=110493&aid=408220&group_id=10493

Category: Documentation
Group: None
>Status: Closed
Priority: 2
Submitted By: Martin Gasbichler (mainzelm)
Assigned to: Olin Shivers (olin-shivers)
Summary: no-directory vs. not-directory

Initial Comment:
The manual (sec. 3.3) lists 'no-directory as a possible
return value of file-not-readable?, but the source code
in fileinfo.scm returns 'noT-directory for this case. 

I dunno which is the intended symbol...



----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Olin Shivers (olin-shivers)
Date: 2001-03-14 19:55

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=101304

Manual is right; source is wrong. We aren't saying F
is *not* a directory, we are saying there is no directory
somewhere in the path.

Fixed in both 0.5 & 0.6 trees.
    -Olin

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=110493&aid=408220&group_id=10493


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>