develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from September 2012

[perl #19333] edit <> files in place is not atomic

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
James E Keenan via RT
Date:
September 21, 2012 19:48
Subject:
[perl #19333] edit <> files in place is not atomic
Message ID:
rt-3.6.HEAD-11172-1348282086-1412.19333-15-0@perl.org
On Sun Dec 11 15:23:08 2011, alh wrote:
> On Sun Nov 27 03:49:39 2011, rjbs wrote:
> > On Sat Nov 26 23:25:16 2011, pcm wrote:
> > > ...
> > > different solution: update perlrun.pod to point out the following two
> > > caveats if no extension is supplied:
> > > ...
> > 
> > We can add this, but they're not really "perl facts" so much as "how
> > file I/O generally works."  I'm not excited about the idea of adding
> > this kind of warning everywhere it might be relevant.  Is this case
> > really special, or is this just one user who didn't think through the
> > ramifications of his program?
> 
> I think adding the warning to perlrun.pod at least would be good so it's
> clear that if you don't want to lose your data, you should make backups.
> 
> I realize that this really goes without saying, because if you mess up
> the search/replace pattern you can really screw up your data, but
> sometimes it's good to re-iterate or make obvious things we may consider
> common knowledge.
> 
> I don't think we should make backing up the data default behavior
> though, but I suppose my only reasoning for that is because "This is how
> it's always been."
> 
> -- Matthew Horsfall (alh)

rjbs, alh:

Can you come to some resolution of these issues so that we can patch if
needed and then close this RT?

Thank you very much.
Jim Keenan


---
via perlbug:  queue: perl5 status: open
https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=19333

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About