GNU logs - #34338, boring messages

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
Resent-From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 21:49:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.34338.B.154940328812200 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 16:47:37 -0500
From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

Subject: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures

Currently:

A1) When delete-file successfully deletes a file, the function returns
    nil, not t.

A2) When the file does not exist, the function returns the same
    value - nil.

A3) When the file has been chmod'ed -w, the function performs the
    operation, with no regard to any option to emulate or not emulate 'rm
    -f', and also returns the identical value - nil.

A4) When either the file's containing folder is chmod'ed -x, or the file
    is chattr'ed +i, the function crashes.


I'd like to suggest:

  delete-file FILE &optional NOERROR FORCE

B1) return t on success

B2) raise an error when (not NOERROR) and:

  B2.1) file doesn't exist

  B2.2) (and (chmod -w) (not FORCE))

  B2.3) another form of permission denial is encountered

B3) return nil when NOERROR and:

  B2.1) file doesn't exist

  B2.2)  another form of permission denial is encountered


C) maybe log the exact error or reason for nil to *Messages*.



In GNU Emacs 26.1 (build 2, x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 3.24.2)
 of 2018-12-26, modified by Debian built on x86-ubc-01
System Description:	Devuan GNU/Linux 2.0.0 (ascii)

-- 
hkp://keys.gnupg.net
CA45 09B5 5351 7C11 A9D1  7286 0036 9E45 1595 8BC0

Message sent:

Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
From: help-debbugs@HIDDEN (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Subject: bug#34338: Acknowledgement (26.1; delete-file return codes and
 failures)
Message-ID: <handler.34338.B.154940328812200.ack <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
X-Gnu-PR-Message: ack 34338
X-Gnu-PR-Package: emacs
Reply-To: 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2019 21:49:02 +0000

Thank you for filing a new bug report with debbugs.gnu.org.

This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.

Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN

If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
send it to 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

Please do not send mail to help-debbugs@HIDDEN unless you wish
to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.

--=20
34338: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D34338
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@HIDDEN with problems

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
Resent-From: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 08:25:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.34338.B34338.15494414906592 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Cc: 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
From: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@HIDDEN>
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 09:24:41 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN> (Boruch
 Baum's message of "Tue, 5 Feb 2019 16:47:37 -0500")
Message-ID: <87d0o5494m.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN> writes:

Hi Boruch,

> I'd like to suggest:
>
>   delete-file FILE &optional NOERROR FORCE

At the very least, keep existing arguments. So it would be

delete-file FILE &optional THRASH NOERROR FORCE

Your other proposals look OK to me. It might be worth to say, that FORCE
could fail for some Tramp backends (but I haven't checked in detail yet).

Best regards, Michael.

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
Resent-From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 09:36:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.34338.B34338.154944571913294 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: Michael Albinus <michael.albinus@HIDDEN>
Cc: 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 04:35:05 -0500
From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <20190206093505.7toxfw44pq4he3e6@HIDDEN>
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
 <87d0o5494m.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87d0o5494m.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

On 2019-02-06 09:24, Michael Albinus wrote:
> Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN> writes:
> > I'd like to suggest:
> >
> >   delete-file FILE &optional NOERROR FORCE
>
> At the very least, keep existing arguments. So it would be
>
> delete-file FILE &optional THRASH NOERROR FORCE

Off-topic, but potentially worthy of consideration: For a second, I
didn't realize that 'thrash' might be a typo, and I got excited, because
it made it seem that there existed a hidden feature that I would love
for delete-file to have: some sort of 'thrashing' the file before
un-linking / de-allocating, aka. a secure delete similar to the linux
core-util 'shred'. As background, I noticed this behavior of
'delete-file' when proposing a feature for emacs-w3m to securely scrub a
user's internet browsing history. There[1], I'm currently just calling
'shred' or some other external program of the user's choice.

> Your other proposals look OK to me. It might be worth to say, that FORCE
> could fail for some Tramp backends (but I haven't checked in detail yet).
>
> Best regards, Michael.

Always happy to try to be of help.

[1] https://github.com/emacs-w3m/emacs-w3m/pull/2

-- 
hkp://keys.gnupg.net
CA45 09B5 5351 7C11 A9D1  7286 0036 9E45 1595 8BC0

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 16:20:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.34338.B34338.154946996613176 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34338
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Cc: 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 34338-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B34338.154946996613176
          (code B ref 34338); Wed, 06 Feb 2019 16:20:02 +0000
Received: (at 34338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Feb 2019 16:19:26 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36100 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1grPv4-0003QS-A0
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 11:19:26 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:54625)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1grPv3-0003QE-00
 for 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 11:19:25 -0500
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:43654)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>)
 id 1grPuw-0003cq-JY; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 11:19:19 -0500
Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3479 helo=home-c4e4a596f7)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>)
 id 1grPuw-0007UF-7V; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 11:19:18 -0500
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 18:19:10 +0200
Message-Id: <83r2cksxdt.fsf@HIDDEN>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
In-reply-to: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN> (message
 from Boruch Baum on Tue, 5 Feb 2019 16:47:37 -0500)
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)

> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 16:47:37 -0500
> From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
> 
> Currently:
> 
> A1) When delete-file successfully deletes a file, the function returns
>     nil, not t.
> 
> A2) When the file does not exist, the function returns the same
>     value - nil.
> 
> A3) When the file has been chmod'ed -w, the function performs the
>     operation, with no regard to any option to emulate or not emulate 'rm
>     -f', and also returns the identical value - nil.
> 
> A4) When either the file's containing folder is chmod'ed -x, or the file
>     is chattr'ed +i, the function crashes.

The function's return value is not documented, which is an indication
that it is "not useful".  You will see in the code that it always
either returns nil or signals an error.

> I'd like to suggest:
> 
>   delete-file FILE &optional NOERROR FORCE

As Michael points out, there's one optional argument already, and we
need to preserve it.

> B2) raise an error when (not NOERROR) and:
> 
>   B2.1) file doesn't exist
> 
>   B2.2) (and (chmod -w) (not FORCE))
> 
>   B2.3) another form of permission denial is encountered

!ERROR and either of the following, or all of them?

In any case, you propose a backward-incompatible change in behavior,
so it won't fly.  We could perhaps do it the other way around: add a
new optional argument ERROR-OUT, which, when non-nil, will cause the
function to signal an error when B2.1 or B2.2 happen (I believe B2.3
already causes an error).  And similarly with FORCE.

IOW, since omitting optional arguments is the same as passing nil for
them, we cannot add new arguments that change behavior if they are
nil, certainly not in a function that is not only command, but also an
important primitive used all over the place in Emacs.

> C) maybe log the exact error or reason for nil to *Messages*.

Not sure what you mean by "exact error or reason", I believe we
already log the reason.

Finally, did you think how to allow users set or reset these new knobs
when invoking delete-file interactively?  I think these options are
mainly for interactive use, and in that case we should have some
convenient way of setting them interactively.

Thanks.

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
Resent-From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2019 21:03:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.34338.B34338.154948694631078 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34338
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Cc: 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 34338-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B34338.154948694631078
          (code B ref 34338); Wed, 06 Feb 2019 21:03:01 +0000
Received: (at 34338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Feb 2019 21:02:26 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36215 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1grUKw-00084x-9W
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 16:02:26 -0500
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:40489)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>) id 1grUKt-00080B-MB
 for 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 16:02:24 -0500
Received: from E15-2016.optimum.net ([108.6.168.221]) by mail.gmx.com
 (mrgmx101 [212.227.17.174]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
 0MP0LT-1gnNj73aZb-006Me7; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 22:02:15 +0100
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:02:11 -0500
From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <20190206210211.f6ugtim5ie22nkd4@HIDDEN>
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
 <83r2cksxdt.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <83r2cksxdt.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:jsuYTs9RtaYPkZuxfEAmDBrQQAYFnPK5ZhMP5XtUzs5xxx7K9fd
 C3zYOZBHUe0ZUh4iurB8tjWAfSojNn7C19/RQNZhS9NJNWfWATewkl6JzNnW97zGHc5adSm
 dGbGJpVxOloQfirpWHzZzvJGj5Swc4bNbulOpwLScAGl0zM1z+FyQ1rqPdhLpjSyOjUhiAi
 sBtaHj4w524xHU83Mge6Q==
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:e9k6hEgzZJo=:d0ZclI6+9cwGZ0LteNomxy
 E4T97GMOeqBBNmEEL/ss/2z9AJwvSmsENDeXOwVzBsktmAj1AJ9Tq7m6gi7MMNQP51p5/yQjM
 odNCjNpQdLauLhyHpU51Vm/EKnhuYKJ72QOAtlJKVL6w8J8zfLw1BXF448RHG5tL+MwLcLlnX
 tihN2JNLXABcKiqlpKPdARHK45tGXdJJsMs/4vjfhr7UjkTpZpZK5aSeGleZtW8ggdOWM0siW
 CXpGvxNIzrFxJbz8HhswkGUUTwqSD98VJJK/cM26+VMITsCuB8NN6gYdV3I3sMQMddZDSBMvl
 0SsL7qgt9RpsxbpQHMSeaEzD4fXFy6VsU4PCMFCApNfGRcnu19RNi0BbqQfArhOYPBuPYbh9Y
 zFijn3vGMVty5KbQyNSXFykvSUDW79QGDcigXxofINXQe4pyvLvLytQPS3p8Kzmgu0+VtP9ux
 cq59ZrjHubgiL1PqtVQiInuwdhX6QWjVP9QuNT4ZcCThuxN5LAUfMubUYDwYeMPPr5W+N1vH4
 Zo50pyZwhtNwdLpjvsVRlnoFWBsptAAkNdvZnyoMWRE7I5K78P66Cyzqw4qaYDlisZV6eSKra
 6YHCtAFvKlY9DRsrUsrROmZ7j6JkhOLcCdYnSdHUt8pDRykYejf6b+5ETYRcetD1CX+XvXtcP
 oezLLUPaH7/DqoTv4k37adT35wfp1byxofmBEZp/v833lHRfaBVjky4AjUJzlHMtFL+S/ZYZW
 4swl36H0oVo/VuThESY8sK46TnUWh54lmnumbNqIGa18csUI/243hNYKtl7HhJMa3mg1TxtBK
 XzSztbfHom0+Jv+1nGhY3Z8/EoDrtd3G2EUdvPa5TCBwpJugj4/XVPANybGcz5OVL3gTTR6eY
 CqIopFxuzhsOnrQ8CAAk4Mi+PHqHL9jhX1wOc7cuI9N19O2uCNKNVz7SDNdnjR
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-)

On 2019-02-06 18:19, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 16:47:37 -0500
> > From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
>
> As Michael points out, there's one optional argument already, and we
> need to preserve it.

Yup.

>
> > B2) raise an error when (not NOERROR) and:
> >
> >   B2.1) file doesn't exist
> >
> >   B2.2) (and (chmod -w) (not FORCE))
> >
> >   B2.3) another form of permission denial is encountered
>
> !ERROR and either of the following, or all of them?

Either.

> In any case, you propose a backward-incompatible change in behavior,
> so it won't fly. We could perhaps do it the other way around: add a
> new optional argument ERROR-OUT, which, when non-nil, will cause the
> function to signal an error when B2.1 or B2.2 happen (I believe B2.3
> already causes an error). And similarly with FORCE.

> IOW
> ... (snip) ...

The part that would transform a prior condition of 'crash' to some
return value is a kind of backward-incompatibility that I think most
people would appreciate. The issue would be if there exists code in
emacs that traps on the current crashes (eg. using 'condition-case'). I
like the idea of requiring non-nil to force an ERROR-OUT, but that would
inconsistent with the more common emacs use of NOERROR as an arg.

For a proposed FORCE arg, backward-incompatibility is a positive
feature, a bug-fix, in that emacs is not currently respecting a user's
environment choice to place a level of protection from deleting the
target file. A user made a conscious positive act at some point to
put a level of protection on a file, that in the usual context, 'rm',
would require further interaction in order to proceed, and emacs is
currently not abiding by that.

> > C) maybe log the exact error or reason for nil to *Messages*.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "exact error or reason", I believe we
> already log the reason.

For me, in response chmod -x $parent_dir, the error message is:

  eval: Removing old name: Permission denied, /home/boruch/foo/bar

And the response to chattr +i bar

  eval: Removing old name: Operation not permitted, /home/boruch/foo/bar

So the messages are unique, but not clear.

> Finally, did you think how to allow users set or reset these new knobs
> when invoking delete-file interactively?

No! Um ....

> I think these options are mainly for interactive use, and in that case
> we should have some convenient way of setting them interactively.

So, currently the prefix arg is already being used for TRASH ...

Interactively, having a 'knob' for NOERROR (or its reverse, per above)
doesn't seem to me necessary ... what value does it add for an
interactive invocation? ...

Interactively, for FORCE, there's no 'lossage-advantage' (borrowed term
based upon `C-h l') to requiring a user to add keystrokes up-front prior
to delete-file, rather than requiring the user to y-or-n if the file has
protection. So, that doesn't seem necessary, unless you want to add a
feature to allow delete-file to operate on a regex or sequence of
filenames instead of a single file.

That leaves my off-topic comment to Michael about a THRASH (not TRASH,
but maybe better SHRED) arg. My input on that would be to have such a
feature as a separate function (eg. shred-file), and not an arg to
delete-file.

חודש טוב ואדר כפול שמח.

-- 
hkp://keys.gnupg.net
CA45 09B5 5351 7C11 A9D1  7286 0036 9E45 1595 8BC0

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 03:37:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.34338.B34338.154951057520195 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34338
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Cc: 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 34338-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B34338.154951057520195
          (code B ref 34338); Thu, 07 Feb 2019 03:37:01 +0000
Received: (at 34338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Feb 2019 03:36:15 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36439 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1graU2-0005Ff-Nm
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 22:36:14 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:43356)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1graU0-0005FR-Dd
 for 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 22:36:12 -0500
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:44383)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>)
 id 1graTv-00025I-6D; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 22:36:07 -0500
Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1910 helo=home-c4e4a596f7)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>)
 id 1graTu-0003PX-Q1; Wed, 06 Feb 2019 22:36:07 -0500
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 05:36:00 +0200
Message-Id: <83ef8ks21r.fsf@HIDDEN>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
In-reply-to: <20190206210211.f6ugtim5ie22nkd4@HIDDEN> (message
 from Boruch Baum on Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:02:11 -0500)
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
 <83r2cksxdt.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <20190206210211.f6ugtim5ie22nkd4@HIDDEN>
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)

> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:02:11 -0500
> From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
> Cc: 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > > B2) raise an error when (not NOERROR) and:
> > >
> > >   B2.1) file doesn't exist
> > >
> > >   B2.2) (and (chmod -w) (not FORCE))
> > >
> > >   B2.3) another form of permission denial is encountered
> >
> > !ERROR and either of the following, or all of them?
> 
> Either.
> 
> > In any case, you propose a backward-incompatible change in behavior,
> > so it won't fly. We could perhaps do it the other way around: add a
> > new optional argument ERROR-OUT, which, when non-nil, will cause the
> > function to signal an error when B2.1 or B2.2 happen (I believe B2.3
> > already causes an error). And similarly with FORCE.
> 
> > IOW
> > ... (snip) ...
> 
> The part that would transform a prior condition of 'crash' to some
> return value is a kind of backward-incompatibility that I think most
> people would appreciate.

I'm more worried about the opposite: signaling an error where we
currently silently do nothing.

> For a proposed FORCE arg, backward-incompatibility is a positive
> feature, a bug-fix

Sorry, it's too late to fix such "bugs" in veteran interfaces.  We
must do that in backward-compatible way.

> > > C) maybe log the exact error or reason for nil to *Messages*.
> >
> > Not sure what you mean by "exact error or reason", I believe we
> > already log the reason.
> 
> For me, in response chmod -x $parent_dir, the error message is:
> 
>   eval: Removing old name: Permission denied, /home/boruch/foo/bar
> 
> And the response to chattr +i bar
> 
>   eval: Removing old name: Operation not permitted, /home/boruch/foo/bar
> 
> So the messages are unique, but not clear.

The description comes from the error code returned by a C library
function.  Doing more than that would mean additional checks, which
will be expensive and probably non-portable.  I don't see the benefit.
I mean, why isn't "Operation not permitted" enough, it tells you that
your user is not permitted to do that, which is clear enough IMO.

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
Resent-From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 05:15:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.34338.B34338.15495164674606 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34338
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Cc: 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 34338-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B34338.15495164674606
          (code B ref 34338); Thu, 07 Feb 2019 05:15:02 +0000
Received: (at 34338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Feb 2019 05:14:27 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36457 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1grc15-0001CE-IT
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 00:14:27 -0500
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.22]:42149)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>) id 1grc13-0001By-1z
 for 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 00:14:25 -0500
Received: from E15-2016.optimum.net ([108.6.168.221]) by mail.gmx.com
 (mrgmx101 [212.227.17.174]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
 0LuKHz-1hIB0Z2lDL-011kPP; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 06:14:17 +0100
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 00:14:12 -0500
From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <20190207051412.gzzzqat6ht3lfwfw@HIDDEN>
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
 <83r2cksxdt.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <20190206210211.f6ugtim5ie22nkd4@HIDDEN>
 <83ef8ks21r.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <83ef8ks21r.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:xcxxLvePaiiywgKzdWsIeiSoyn0JEbvNkmxIAwT+Da7kMMDL4Ro
 kdKRhuDS2lR8i3ZLjdQXldGE6akga/uIyEszp2Dikn6v1c/3hXwCN0kzHbNBc2Fp8cdTJ06
 HOW8UzYQcrX1LdwViyOuultapCH4YEi1TriqjnGbNcxMY1bENviB07AVagPyoUJnYYBJQsT
 +7t8XnGpI9emnYmFIl5Ww==
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:zWGSvcnWou0=:3QrBhrMPOf3ww9jak/2quC
 kJYQQ+7VyKOYWOaaKB21zcTI/aAsYxMIfBJID0yr88pRgW0ZHjtgY9TGVH6KNEZBye911XcMB
 v/rvJiGKSDxWI7rDBd0bZPaKV4pMImvYe4PkoHHvtGvvEdqPSK0oDGnf/53dCd8BwVF3+mJfk
 D/eEq/OwhrKvr+1qG9xRs7oyRmnfO8Jl4G6ZnJLcVy/vVKEAP89HMh6PVicSWp5TIcmT84zos
 GPedSkMCT36Qk5TaIHWcNt2tOzeQg0gawFDpRT38PK9n6R+OryWZGOe4jxXLCSbvON3AHaZDF
 S3Lzb7s9K4/RSG2lZq8jXMIIZck9xyZXZr/45Uy3xZ6P4aTLPmIoLyCDpOEkOOe3e/G4cVGyE
 cm6tmiWxPAMAzidfCTYYMmBsxG/NSbPhkEyyfNSmHI547/wW9PjzpxPgSs/r/N64OxLai/KJv
 RQIohkImbCjdrbD6a/9j/R39Szw2hX5PuqEHavaMZfM2hkfwgTKmJiNbBUsd1IolJf8rEEy5L
 Glxn2R5IJSK1B6b6kbhfK9HEOkLT5H3qF+PswzUnO390tvPI++VvSlBZJwG17a9IBW8rRsEn2
 ZziheBzO9Qx4b7FdEYqoknpsA3KH/rH5ErBcfLBdHmdMbOUs0BM6gFNnFxaYdS9BAXt+Qdws2
 P2DXddYQpYyH2SkSkyHxa/aSeB/Duf62MsIoE0L6HwAnspa9YPn2BKDeOLh8/Ow08BGgCdY3v
 xTZZvOqGcLwA9P+IzijplArIlVrABehJKG9kMHj0ABvsZRud4/HJ+78/1wldCWixmq/l+DbEg
 jSpwq13Ckz56Hqg5yoGZFrm/fuUZ0aREjMRaXK7tLJffosd5tFX+MPrPHEPqezVIbHvcwHy4v
 52L8cCh4l8rVjoslTu5iO0rhgVHt1MBOMI/pIS68eeY1ngUmW4HHIJl5KXYHuC
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-)

On 2019-02-07 05:36, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:02:11 -0500
> > From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
> >
> > So the messages are unique, but not clear.
>
> The description comes from the error code returned by a C library
> function.  Doing more than that would mean additional checks, which
> will be expensive and probably non-portable.  I don't see the benefit.
> I mean, why isn't "Operation not permitted" enough, it tells you that
> your user is not permitted to do that, which is clear enough IMO.

Reasonable.

-- 
hkp://keys.gnupg.net
CA45 09B5 5351 7C11 A9D1  7286 0036 9E45 1595 8BC0

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
Resent-From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 11:49:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.34338.B34338.15706217363415 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34338
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 34338-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B34338.15706217363415
          (code B ref 34338); Wed, 09 Oct 2019 11:49:02 +0000
Received: (at 34338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Oct 2019 11:48:56 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52234 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1iIASd-0000t1-Sa
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2019 07:48:56 -0400
Received: from mail-pf1-f178.google.com ([209.85.210.178]:40170)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <stefankangas@HIDDEN>) id 1iIASc-0000sn-79
 for 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 09 Oct 2019 07:48:54 -0400
Received: by mail-pf1-f178.google.com with SMTP id x127so1465531pfb.7
 for <34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 09 Oct 2019 04:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=IMW26mDeC+g2s7UZc1gjUSOrbaI1c0W+bMNmxd2+7tM=;
 b=YEoQCTlDnZPLCXaDYSzAQTdR4PY8ZB05T43DtmaV5oUez1qWnEbgC2cwQfJ4j3/Ry/
 7LrAXQMb9Dz1ba/qZx3zfnzXBASN62rqXOo2w2efukMHgYnjETj4MP/gem3qEF6l1Vh+
 35zSACJpYkYdGT64zkmHBuTkv0KTQKPgY/rzL1DL2uRtINFV23udX5n7vyYw+Y0m0lTv
 3xdx0fm6jyJNcB1pVJb6pHm1or52WH1iMP/iP1MUFe4DMjzzvE6rhmpsFSSMWh+2cgmc
 iKrSAJAW4BeCRKLBJtLjwnF9k1gZj7t3cqzrY63oBvuQUR7qW2q3HcFXUtUG4AhReJz5
 X+Ag==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXfpP4e+Ukiw/liWoOiYQM3hyAmvZSHSTJ2Ete4lVcTq6Vsvm1T
 N99wmJUU18oRLBd2zdTAgbNS9TemE/+AGe5ALlU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqygXylw2lBMtUtxKpVmTJRZ/YvNdR3NTMuYwBIrR5OsTIFnNNDfWOlhNLTTJkSmRIfBGAHc3JDMo7pbrJ5ZUtg=
X-Received: by 2002:a62:1bd3:: with SMTP id b202mr3321233pfb.50.1570621728421; 
 Wed, 09 Oct 2019 04:48:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:48:37 +0200
Message-ID: <CADwFkmmhRAptdebg1DC5Xg9v2Xw6NagYKgL2fVBP7peqPJjaqw@HIDDEN>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000032fd40059478de7d"
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)

--00000000000032fd40059478de7d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN> writes:

> On 2019-02-07 05:36, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> > Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:02:11 -0500
>> > From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
>> >
>> > So the messages are unique, but not clear.
>>
>> The description comes from the error code returned by a C library
>> function.  Doing more than that would mean additional checks, which
>> will be expensive and probably non-portable.  I don't see the benefit.
>> I mean, why isn't "Operation not permitted" enough, it tells you that
>> your user is not permitted to do that, which is clear enough IMO.
>
> Reasonable.

It seems to me from the discussion like we don't want to make the proposed
change, since it has an unclear benefit and is backwards
incompatible.

Is there is something I'm missing here?  Otherwise, I think we can close
this as wontfix.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

--00000000000032fd40059478de7d
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Boruch Baum &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:boruch_baum@HIDDEN">bor=
uch_baum@HIDDEN</a>&gt; writes:<br><br>&gt; On 2019-02-07 05:36, Eli Zaret=
skii wrote:<br>&gt;&gt; &gt; Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 16:02:11 -0500<br>&gt;&g=
t; &gt; From: Boruch Baum &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:boruch_baum@HIDDEN">boruch=
_baum@HIDDEN</a>&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>&gt;&gt; &gt; So the messages are=
 unique, but not clear.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; The description comes from =
the error code returned by a C library<br>&gt;&gt; function.=C2=A0 Doing mo=
re than that would mean additional checks, which<br>&gt;&gt; will be expens=
ive and probably non-portable.=C2=A0 I don&#39;t see the benefit.<br>&gt;&g=
t; I mean, why isn&#39;t &quot;Operation not permitted&quot; enough, it tel=
ls you that<br>&gt;&gt; your user is not permitted to do that, which is cle=
ar enough IMO.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Reasonable.<br><br>It seems to me from the d=
iscussion like we don&#39;t want to make the proposed change, since it has =
an unclear benefit and is backwards<br>incompatible.<br><br>Is there is som=
ething I&#39;m missing here?=C2=A0 Otherwise, I think we can close this as =
wontfix.<br><br>Best regards,<br>Stefan Kangas</div>

--00000000000032fd40059478de7d--

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
Resent-From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 21:09:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.34338.B34338.15724696915335 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34338
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 34338-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B34338.15724696915335
          (code B ref 34338); Wed, 30 Oct 2019 21:09:02 +0000
Received: (at 34338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Oct 2019 21:08:11 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51706 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1iPvCM-0001Ny-L3
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:08:10 -0400
Received: from giraff.fripost.org ([193.234.15.44]:42238
 helo=outgoing.fripost.org)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <skangas@HIDDEN>)
 id 1iPvCK-0001Ng-Hf; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:08:08 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by outgoing.fripost.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E27187E918;
 Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:08:03 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=x.fripost.org; h=
 content-type:content-type:mime-version:user-agent:message-id
 :in-reply-to:date:date:references:subject:subject:from:from; s=
 9df9cdc7e101629b5003b587945afa70; t=1572469683; x=1574284084;
 bh=eMzQ3PSFJZ8Dy62JsqeON8uipQyVYbX23ZIpbGSpkac=; b=Ur6PH2CuM4lM
 P7KBbyohaHXN/iPUYLr3Ro5wYO5aTQqpZHMMbb7vfB20DB/LxixE6B1QwWdqYHgt
 GLM3KNEy5KWmErZb1S9UGq6iCIHFjCTDacJ2GST0NELa6Vf5UOaQZ5BAhQDBMfck
 brw/jJIoJ8muKkGa9ga4Qi35dm2AsdT/qPKIFvcivcKfYnjtQ9yi6lf17nmhnIqu
 aVfV4aMPj0FKo5Mt8SiQ0sa6Ic9BatMZLvPuBLrPpiMaVC9DpvnbgWILXdLAv+Ha
 yFD1fRojb2N3ivhmjMickdNEf4Hyb4zVpbOTwSYbzLCl4aIGV8zkI19JuyrpaG50
 c0XpEJTcKw==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at fripost.org
Received: from outgoing.fripost.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (giraff.fripost.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10040)
 with LMTP id XukFGgscTHkS; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:08:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from smtp.fripost.org (unknown [172.16.0.6])
 by outgoing.fripost.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0129E187E914;
 Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:08:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 by smtp.fripost.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95815599EF95;
 Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:07:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from skangas by joffe.skangas.se with local (Exim 4.92)
 (envelope-from <skangas@HIDDEN>)
 id 1iPvBr-00052p-I5; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:07:39 +0100
From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@HIDDEN>
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
 <CADwFkmmhRAptdebg1DC5Xg9v2Xw6NagYKgL2fVBP7peqPJjaqw@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:07:39 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CADwFkmmhRAptdebg1DC5Xg9v2Xw6NagYKgL2fVBP7peqPJjaqw@HIDDEN>
 (Stefan Kangas's message of "Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:48:37 +0200")
Message-ID: <87wocmvt5w.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--)

tags 34338 + wontfix
close 34338
quit

Stefan Kangas <stefan@HIDDEN> writes:

> It seems to me from the discussion like we don't want to make the
> proposed change, since it has an unclear benefit and is backwards
> incompatible.
>
> Is there is something I'm missing here?  Otherwise, I think we can
> close this as wontfix.

No one has objected within 3 weeks, so I'm closing this as wontfix.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message received at control <at> debbugs.gnu.org:

Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Oct 2019 21:08:11 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 30 17:08:11 2019
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51708 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1iPvCM-0001O0-U5
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:08:11 -0400
Received: from giraff.fripost.org ([193.234.15.44]:42238
 helo=outgoing.fripost.org)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <skangas@HIDDEN>)
 id 1iPvCK-0001Ng-Hf; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:08:08 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by outgoing.fripost.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E27187E918;
 Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:08:03 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=x.fripost.org; h=
 content-type:content-type:mime-version:user-agent:message-id
 :in-reply-to:date:date:references:subject:subject:from:from; s=
 9df9cdc7e101629b5003b587945afa70; t=1572469683; x=1574284084;
 bh=eMzQ3PSFJZ8Dy62JsqeON8uipQyVYbX23ZIpbGSpkac=; b=Ur6PH2CuM4lM
 P7KBbyohaHXN/iPUYLr3Ro5wYO5aTQqpZHMMbb7vfB20DB/LxixE6B1QwWdqYHgt
 GLM3KNEy5KWmErZb1S9UGq6iCIHFjCTDacJ2GST0NELa6Vf5UOaQZ5BAhQDBMfck
 brw/jJIoJ8muKkGa9ga4Qi35dm2AsdT/qPKIFvcivcKfYnjtQ9yi6lf17nmhnIqu
 aVfV4aMPj0FKo5Mt8SiQ0sa6Ic9BatMZLvPuBLrPpiMaVC9DpvnbgWILXdLAv+Ha
 yFD1fRojb2N3ivhmjMickdNEf4Hyb4zVpbOTwSYbzLCl4aIGV8zkI19JuyrpaG50
 c0XpEJTcKw==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at fripost.org
Received: from outgoing.fripost.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (giraff.fripost.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10040)
 with LMTP id XukFGgscTHkS; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:08:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from smtp.fripost.org (unknown [172.16.0.6])
 by outgoing.fripost.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0129E187E914;
 Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:08:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 by smtp.fripost.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95815599EF95;
 Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:07:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from skangas by joffe.skangas.se with local (Exim 4.92)
 (envelope-from <skangas@HIDDEN>)
 id 1iPvBr-00052p-I5; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:07:39 +0100
From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@HIDDEN>
To: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
 <CADwFkmmhRAptdebg1DC5Xg9v2Xw6NagYKgL2fVBP7peqPJjaqw@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:07:39 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CADwFkmmhRAptdebg1DC5Xg9v2Xw6NagYKgL2fVBP7peqPJjaqw@HIDDEN>
 (Stefan Kangas's message of "Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:48:37 +0200")
Message-ID: <87wocmvt5w.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--)

tags 34338 + wontfix
close 34338
quit

Stefan Kangas <stefan@HIDDEN> writes:

> It seems to me from the discussion like we don't want to make the
> proposed change, since it has an unclear benefit and is backwards
> incompatible.
>
> Is there is something I'm missing here?  Otherwise, I think we can
> close this as wontfix.

No one has objected within 3 weeks, so I'm closing this as wontfix.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message received at control <at> debbugs.gnu.org:

Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Oct 2019 21:08:11 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 30 17:08:11 2019
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51708 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1iPvCM-0001O0-U5
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:08:11 -0400
Received: from giraff.fripost.org ([193.234.15.44]:42238
 helo=outgoing.fripost.org)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <skangas@HIDDEN>)
 id 1iPvCK-0001Ng-Hf; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 17:08:08 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by outgoing.fripost.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E27187E918;
 Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:08:03 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=x.fripost.org; h=
 content-type:content-type:mime-version:user-agent:message-id
 :in-reply-to:date:date:references:subject:subject:from:from; s=
 9df9cdc7e101629b5003b587945afa70; t=1572469683; x=1574284084;
 bh=eMzQ3PSFJZ8Dy62JsqeON8uipQyVYbX23ZIpbGSpkac=; b=Ur6PH2CuM4lM
 P7KBbyohaHXN/iPUYLr3Ro5wYO5aTQqpZHMMbb7vfB20DB/LxixE6B1QwWdqYHgt
 GLM3KNEy5KWmErZb1S9UGq6iCIHFjCTDacJ2GST0NELa6Vf5UOaQZ5BAhQDBMfck
 brw/jJIoJ8muKkGa9ga4Qi35dm2AsdT/qPKIFvcivcKfYnjtQ9yi6lf17nmhnIqu
 aVfV4aMPj0FKo5Mt8SiQ0sa6Ic9BatMZLvPuBLrPpiMaVC9DpvnbgWILXdLAv+Ha
 yFD1fRojb2N3ivhmjMickdNEf4Hyb4zVpbOTwSYbzLCl4aIGV8zkI19JuyrpaG50
 c0XpEJTcKw==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at fripost.org
Received: from outgoing.fripost.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (giraff.fripost.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10040)
 with LMTP id XukFGgscTHkS; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:08:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from smtp.fripost.org (unknown [172.16.0.6])
 by outgoing.fripost.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0129E187E914;
 Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:08:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 by smtp.fripost.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95815599EF95;
 Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:07:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from skangas by joffe.skangas.se with local (Exim 4.92)
 (envelope-from <skangas@HIDDEN>)
 id 1iPvBr-00052p-I5; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:07:39 +0100
From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@HIDDEN>
To: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
 <CADwFkmmhRAptdebg1DC5Xg9v2Xw6NagYKgL2fVBP7peqPJjaqw@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:07:39 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CADwFkmmhRAptdebg1DC5Xg9v2Xw6NagYKgL2fVBP7peqPJjaqw@HIDDEN>
 (Stefan Kangas's message of "Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:48:37 +0200")
Message-ID: <87wocmvt5w.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--)

tags 34338 + wontfix
close 34338
quit

Stefan Kangas <stefan@HIDDEN> writes:

> It seems to me from the discussion like we don't want to make the
> proposed change, since it has an unclear benefit and is backwards
> incompatible.
>
> Is there is something I'm missing here?  Otherwise, I think we can
> close this as wontfix.

No one has objected within 3 weeks, so I'm closing this as wontfix.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
Resent-From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:23:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.34338.B34338.157247413711585 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34338
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: wontfix
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan@HIDDEN>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 34338-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B34338.157247413711585
          (code B ref 34338); Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:23:02 +0000
Received: (at 34338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Oct 2019 22:22:17 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51773 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1iPwM5-00030m-4B
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 18:22:17 -0400
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.19]:39175)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>) id 1iPwM1-00030S-Ov
 for 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 18:22:15 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net;
 s=badeba3b8450; t=1572474125;
 bh=uCPV58E5b6zjlZv2hwzZ0bjfRjWMWZiIKFZVKYNBtkg=;
 h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
 b=fljd7EH6D1iArrsjeNnndJhd+vaBrwGAaejr0ZHPG1lpnMyOWxJ/EwhadTT3ze77Z
 I/2l+IZ9O2ViNGzzHYPeWmbAupoDEZMMTeXtfV1W8YF1BgG+gW44hvoPA2EF8HMx0o
 nJf9mYBbnZRfpGoE7X2kxPiH/9srx6iAUxVL/4jE=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from E15-2016.optimum.net ([96.246.226.236]) by mail.gmx.com
 (mrgmx005 [212.227.17.184]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
 1MvbFs-1i961T1UUI-00sci9; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 23:22:05 +0100
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 18:22:00 -0400
From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <20191030222159.rwfn7clgfjh36dze@HIDDEN>
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
 <CADwFkmmhRAptdebg1DC5Xg9v2Xw6NagYKgL2fVBP7peqPJjaqw@HIDDEN>
 <87wocmvt5w.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87wocmvt5w.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:+TxQWZu0w69jxTm8CjfGBpK7kn0cwWrddWVKhPxIq6n16P54Jlr
 9m0dkhzoZXh1gGqNznw8xTOXjZLueT9/b8az6FYeRc1nQpDsgQ6n/HxeFMHdfaEZPEd1+0l
 uHE1iqfsm/xAtWnNyyIXBRUPN3ivXfBU+p1UoriVr8JzLpcd+pHQyM6UXtVdPjPj7JUbJAM
 DEaYS8Uy141ApkyQLTaSA==
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:AgQW9VsQWNs=:yW5wFPmzdOPjKzP8XX/dfb
 cvdnI8s55xBLZ/xVFRBXFfEIt5x5cK/XwAh/LqWCDLXWHUDafZh44dQ0Zk+JsfvgzXyn3vUjQ
 tRWMA8S5nurS+k3BAWaQ9fcHmTdvQvhcEsH8ckxD4X7x9UVw79lb6VPCO8VJvd8D8zSbxHn8v
 dHw7u1tH1ksZrJnEOET1FP0WgrqktjKu3u4Weo5nulaTRc4Yc5hMWsjJkdqB51eL+ecamj1Ac
 /RHaBxN65aut54YvhLD1reprc9IypDSEmdEODdqQJOoWSZk9wvxT+vd8vEYTpyRdW622j+tNQ
 J2MFs3ZMDE1MhahtidNHWp8AUMjaleTgA+wMtA4gqlb1AUHTRJeLHgR3dpJ7eSABOPnMrLDch
 T4+YZoeTf5lcPwaYngjxyzfAr23gEpoCu8Se17SQrLxwwYG6kNezqGepJORnpSzQHZtF6Q74E
 7Z3MMcO/a/jSwfXchWuWPCXI3SRUm410vABb2UYPb30WLGQJCm/w84YRGs/8Ubuo7qynGFcM9
 w2VrYN63NlKCrhcMkc4QQ0ExIWj66YIscXeYkOb4o+oGnflMMSlqXSpdwY0Kh2snZEUyydrVZ
 LWN9CuyuYhaOpXoZbD68IoiXgioAjtj4lpnwOdtTs91rUsw+2Lkpv/96RiVsGibJ4H3LfqBR0
 gZE/w1dCzZ0Q308Nps/JSPacMX4iQOExGccOGQDTFqzZcGn4vrZ6atj7nVjjKJ0ZWYWPmb2jZ
 ck0koLzuBL7LzYc43zVPFPD6mIy2h3+8NPUo0Lv40fXJRlPcdghauDFNg9k3cT0OpGZzpXSIJ
 VvcaJlDf02P8JnW524rJDoionOWpIsSUPEAMviRltvuuA4EqiAu0g1anFOValEpdRuLZk9Whw
 1hzOXBJxKgB50NWp+NhZERfx4zXMJfFWE5jinaFnTqOypw26B/wH3kAPEpSqJYBUvHLPF2ieg
 a3+0LtuF3N6k01lZS22enw0J2sfXqkwjuSRM5k3JbwgmG2DiH1NkvQ7uZDrusiJaZSbvZLcSH
 rnzQiDgxiswupJgC5DWXtuSDpBBpslhdrLkrLwX5NjHeuKsNCEdLDpayFair6CHbyyy/l2ULa
 /ISyuu6DI/jrxoTHeb4sjIeSmGhUbTvg2wH0zl15l/2qlfGTLmKCzG+2OiqkEkcx8HRos5TM/
 fRLy/IxlWJBcVMj6gGNmj753fc1ojvyFo53ieVTxlqPRjL9ZPd51og85qby++6m4XSHTuu5La
 NTfP2qSaZoY8oiyUfgTOIY4rbi08bFwizS0KlK13+vWvlvpN7a1sIayeXlN0=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)

How is it backwards incompatable? If the prior behavior was undefined,
no one would have been using it for anything. From their perspective, a
defined is just another form of undefined behavior, if you get my drift.

On 2019-10-30 22:07, Stefan Kangas wrote:
> tags 34338 + wontfix
> close 34338
> quit
>
> Stefan Kangas <stefan@HIDDEN> writes:
>
> > It seems to me from the discussion like we don't want to make the
> > proposed change, since it has an unclear benefit and is backwards
> > incompatible.
> >
> > Is there is something I'm missing here?  Otherwise, I think we can
> > close this as wontfix.
>
> No one has objected within 3 weeks, so I'm closing this as wontfix.
>
> Best regards,
> Stefan Kangas

=2D-
hkp://keys.gnupg.net
CA45 09B5 5351 7C11 A9D1  7286 0036 9E45 1595 8BC0

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
Resent-From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:54:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.34338.B34338.157247599122637 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34338
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: wontfix
To: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 34338-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B34338.157247599122637
          (code B ref 34338); Wed, 30 Oct 2019 22:54:02 +0000
Received: (at 34338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Oct 2019 22:53:11 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51810 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1iPwpz-0005t3-2G
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 18:53:11 -0400
Received: from giraff.fripost.org ([193.234.15.44]:42414
 helo=outgoing.fripost.org)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <skangas@HIDDEN>) id 1iPwpw-0005sk-C6
 for 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 18:53:09 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by outgoing.fripost.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7904C187EB06;
 Wed, 30 Oct 2019 23:53:02 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=x.fripost.org; h=
 content-type:content-type:mime-version:user-agent:message-id
 :in-reply-to:date:date:references:subject:subject:from:from; s=
 9df9cdc7e101629b5003b587945afa70; t=1572475982; x=1574290383;
 bh=jTtt2WlUy7BIwwmrPK+boOfldEAV8lhQBnJSk0QkG1c=; b=FZiUEHhkE26P
 /3AwwLRryCOsJAu83tQ5imnHEMJ7CJiU5FEsuc4Eq6tXKz1SQY9uW4aatBQzywkM
 /UmjCf7/rI5ufTWMvLcClAyUGcVKgkqpBkQT1MHPcpRntF/1+IehSEUslrGK18/U
 DCqkQSBMq2XY+ExRdoNMfcYvqBDjX58Q8afgCExz4CeWTdWnOZIfIM3UIopIWJo4
 1LOVmYyAz8MFlXH9l2SGm9sZ1JXLtpxGcj3YNjgGe0W7/eojzHMe0twTWW7IBJnG
 /+WbjciU06+X6jfe8SJJ2jeIBrTeyHc/KJ3OTHah5iVo25H/qhHCUc4EgBZDMQ/a
 QZ/9MsVrjg==
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at fripost.org
Received: from outgoing.fripost.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (giraff.fripost.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10040)
 with LMTP id ptQtY_PCmfGz; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 23:53:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from smtp.fripost.org (unknown [172.16.0.6])
 by outgoing.fripost.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC20187EB02;
 Wed, 30 Oct 2019 23:53:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 by smtp.fripost.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A2BCE59A027A;
 Wed, 30 Oct 2019 23:53:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from skangas by joffe.skangas.se with local (Exim 4.92)
 (envelope-from <skangas@HIDDEN>)
 id 1iPwpe-0006eC-Qe; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 23:52:50 +0100
From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@HIDDEN>
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
 <CADwFkmmhRAptdebg1DC5Xg9v2Xw6NagYKgL2fVBP7peqPJjaqw@HIDDEN>
 <87wocmvt5w.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <20191030222159.rwfn7clgfjh36dze@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 23:52:50 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20191030222159.rwfn7clgfjh36dze@HIDDEN> (Boruch
 Baum's message of "Wed, 30 Oct 2019 18:22:00 -0400")
Message-ID: <875zk5x2v1.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--)

Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN> writes:

> How is it backwards incompatable? If the prior behavior was undefined,
> no one would have been using it for anything. From their perspective, a
> defined is just another form of undefined behavior, if you get my drift.

Having re-read the entire discussion, I think that we should perhaps
clarify what we're talking about.  Your proposal had three different
parts to it AFAICT:

Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN> writes:

> B1) return t on success

Eli said that: "The function's return value is not documented, which is
an indication that it is 'not useful'."

Do you have a use-case in mind here?  Can't the caller just check using
'file-exists-p' if it matters instead?

> B2) raise an error when (not NOERROR) and:
> 
>   B2.1) file doesn't exist
> 
>   B2.2) (and (chmod -w) (not FORCE))
> 
>   B2.3) another form of permission denial is encountered

Eli replied: "In any case, you propose a backward-incompatible change in
behavior, so it won't fly.  We could perhaps do it the other way around:
add a new optional argument ERROR-OUT, which, when non-nil, will cause
the function to signal an error when B2.1 or B2.2 happen (I believe B2.3
already causes an error).  And similarly with FORCE."

I'm not against this part, but again I'm not sure what is the use-case
here.  And what about having the caller use 'file-exists-p' instead?

> B3) return nil when NOERROR and:
> 
>   B2.1) file doesn't exist
> 
>   B2.2)  another form of permission denial is encountered

I guess the inverted version of the above makes sense (return nil unless
ERROR-OUT), iff we add B1 and B2.

> C) maybe log the exact error or reason for nil to *Messages*.

This part was agreed to be left out already, and I agree.

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
Resent-From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 01:34:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.34338.B34338.157248563213825 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34338
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: wontfix
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan@HIDDEN>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 34338-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B34338.157248563213825
          (code B ref 34338); Thu, 31 Oct 2019 01:34:01 +0000
Received: (at 34338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 31 Oct 2019 01:33:52 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51960 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1iPzLU-0003av-2X
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 21:33:52 -0400
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]:59551)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>) id 1iPzLP-0003ad-RB
 for 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 21:33:48 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net;
 s=badeba3b8450; t=1572485617;
 bh=ZCpFWs8K1mnzXs1tB5bfn1EAsKzmAt3qN9mfW3tu0xw=;
 h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
 b=D7nD8Cj6cZ4zkNiO7KJsTF50wc0/1sgMmuAWhMBhPzfUCLrwYu12f6DhScGI1w8Tn
 urpMYFPvrRliJMqV9XdtpJ73tl6eyNlXqldNG/DmxMyx9STSgq0OkmBGARYEr/sDYO
 gyWhlgiHXhffmMrlB1QTUYaUM4hMA8VUEP4XP4HE=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from E15-2016.optimum.net ([96.246.226.236]) by mail.gmx.com
 (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.184]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
 1N8ob6-1hvttZ3p5C-015qWh; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 02:33:37 +0100
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 21:33:29 -0400
From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <20191031012641.lam4pwo3cenf7tsu@HIDDEN>
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
 <CADwFkmmhRAptdebg1DC5Xg9v2Xw6NagYKgL2fVBP7peqPJjaqw@HIDDEN>
 <87wocmvt5w.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <20191030222159.rwfn7clgfjh36dze@HIDDEN>
 <875zk5x2v1.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <875zk5x2v1.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:RY9/ZCoKimVoARrsp9vvUdCh06BDipnUSD4MQJEzBl/f2rHZZgh
 puM76kW/NKtI2dIHhd60fk05UCS3aWiOeAzDwSTFIuO2yAbwx0ABEoh/L9rIwrLyyT9Ff55
 ofgr3ITJeIDzgHgTqhogvvvSDACgO3y58/7ccy7mpvuUbS7jpPju0giLS7q50392UocSLtx
 iW4S7KZgP7ACmAcJS//oA==
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:umDrt2jVwPU=:ASqy1a7HJCKH4OK1MKRRpP
 ORKFjb9orQPziRg2Jk2q6lm9ds1QNntF0YSwPY0iWxt1bpzrPQzq8GPGj9qaOLf7MIw+72nSZ
 PwM0IKlCmA1r0v+0nlRuu5kSEIiJ7nuEf3FUHTfnaKa/hHuF6XOaq4xerXkJIwBGnIVrH2TA/
 IJY8TX8M0nwZhvox/J6w7WqicIpKvtsYffhgtE+ut4PFubLOcm18lxbHDq4uHCWge/ilhW4RU
 DklhJ5GiLdRtQvBgnZ0cWnvu7zXayU9Lm309fddWeg1X5ZueTNSwZm+HGYo+HLqbTv3IVxahA
 jmwaB00mT6R0IQC5+z44j1ptgxm8mQcm+psMGOn3B3qkVe87ZG+l2zIJRvFm5jCuE/HvclWsJ
 VXIsBf/AufJpmb1bYuAO0c8T9DZwfscOrE1LkY4JjHgtfdZH7m2xOQ3Cc/tLDfIeY6mtd5IoO
 2jzCy+b75B0OLBl0RF/AsZ1lnt0IOYe+oJREBcvWG5pOuGkeLZsmNz3CaB2FO12jtUHrbdqkF
 stsizyjHKSyeV5Ldv1utJ/t2MWhm4r5+ORdQcxXf0QWWHojuaqudYgznBg/qW1FaQf8XaCfME
 VLu96IhQMMheOfEGjCN0jLxRkabZrODcVMVxnaCV+JEz+IPqJcLRIn7ugTHZCg8NFx5475qIZ
 Bny4gKzSG2NueomiYvGLzsJvwKOHu4kpTARA0sQHahYWS1+X7oH04mCAJ2LjMWmJoaceOKznm
 kof2G1OLOGES5LyvAyN5+MAx1Su4R69dOs0r24Nw9x7tfAJJK6RV9/nCJka1W7uBrUGvrHw0w
 wvpZ63scp808Atjn3lX46O2D2PrlmMV20z6eAuAd3kJ/e/VacBs0TnGHWvtLkGcs1N9iMUIWl
 I/m02H4jKxNyb4YfNiRsRzjbsH/y3iUwYUi/AgRIpnZ7XWXuocTIq+rHqmGeQk7jaPpQun0Oz
 zHZc0jjo68bkvzHlZEg1jOvak8amw59AHYy0wXXemJ4Gn/OMn4hq7pXssm1gufTflLcogX8YT
 AG5ZUpS/q4/7zBzPKakcnK2fD9BprDX2TWRNFQQr/WzXoZB5VRhBvZQ09vXECS7nB9GaufGvp
 xT7xLCw2e5RuD/ZLCfaMw1dJuQeeP0ft1fgqhHOuTPWTe9v21QwTfSJNzG3iL2PXCJ5yaxQ6n
 94xdbhQJXpduHrYJJM2svEGWPIZDTHyld1Nf06lO2dqSj36XKS4rYWa5TUQ2mSijJfV7xMxuR
 2tHFpP4lIC6H2cr1l8zzymoNtoI6r1IBC5EOC/x4n1NaH3WHZXMGs0Uy0uBY=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)


On 2019-10-30 23:52, Stefan Kangas wrote:
> Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN> writes:
>
> Do you have a use-case in mind here?  Can't the caller just check using
> 'file-exists-p' if it matters instead?

It _should_ *always* matter. Did you delete the file or not? If it didn't
matter, why waste your time attempting the deletion?

Having delete-file return the value is: a) consistent with what I think
is the expectation of most CS folks; b) the most efficient, since it
already knows the exact point of any failure, and basically just passes
the return value it gets from the underlying OS.

=2D-
hkp://keys.gnupg.net
CA45 09B5 5351 7C11 A9D1  7286 0036 9E45 1595 8BC0

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:02:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.34338.B34338.157253048415932 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34338
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: wontfix
To: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Cc: 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, stefan@HIDDEN
Received: via spool by 34338-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B34338.157253048415932
          (code B ref 34338); Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:02:01 +0000
Received: (at 34338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 31 Oct 2019 14:01:24 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53886 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1iQB0t-00048Y-M7
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:01:24 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34176)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1iQB0r-00042w-Dg
 for 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:01:21 -0400
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:53473)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>)
 id 1iQB0l-0002Ep-MK; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:01:15 -0400
Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4224 helo=home-c4e4a596f7)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>)
 id 1iQB0k-00085q-NR; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:01:15 -0400
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:01:15 +0200
Message-Id: <83r22tnhec.fsf@HIDDEN>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
In-reply-to: <20191030222159.rwfn7clgfjh36dze@HIDDEN> (message
 from Boruch Baum on Wed, 30 Oct 2019 18:22:00 -0400)
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
 <CADwFkmmhRAptdebg1DC5Xg9v2Xw6NagYKgL2fVBP7peqPJjaqw@HIDDEN>
 <87wocmvt5w.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <20191030222159.rwfn7clgfjh36dze@HIDDEN>
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---)

> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 18:22:00 -0400
> From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> How is it backwards incompatable? If the prior behavior was undefined,
> no one would have been using it for anything. From their perspective, a
> defined is just another form of undefined behavior, if you get my drift.

My "backward-incompatible" response was only related to your
suggestion to signal an error when a file doesn't exist, and/or modify
the function's signature in incompatible ways.  I didn't object to
making this function return a meaningful value, if the argument list
remains compatible, i.e. if existing code doesn't need to change.

However, if we make the function return meaningful values, we must
make sure it always does so, and in consistent manner.  For example,
the file handlers should be documented to return the same values (and
existing handlers should be modified to actually do so), moving the
file to trash, whether via a system-dependent primitive or application
code in files.el, should return the same value for the same
conditions, etc.

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:33:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.34338.B34338.157253234329354 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34338
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: wontfix
To: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Cc: 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, stefan@HIDDEN
Received: via spool by 34338-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B34338.157253234329354
          (code B ref 34338); Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:33:02 +0000
Received: (at 34338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 31 Oct 2019 14:32:23 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53977 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1iQBUt-0007cz-34
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:32:23 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39062)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1iQBUr-0007ZG-I3
 for 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:32:21 -0400
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:54275)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>)
 id 1iQBUk-0002iA-EO; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:32:14 -0400
Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2133 helo=home-c4e4a596f7)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>)
 id 1iQBUi-0004bY-Mu; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:32:13 -0400
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:32:13 +0200
Message-Id: <83h83pnfyq.fsf@HIDDEN>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
In-reply-to: <20191031012641.lam4pwo3cenf7tsu@HIDDEN> (message
 from Boruch Baum on Wed, 30 Oct 2019 21:33:29 -0400)
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
 <CADwFkmmhRAptdebg1DC5Xg9v2Xw6NagYKgL2fVBP7peqPJjaqw@HIDDEN>
 <87wocmvt5w.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <20191030222159.rwfn7clgfjh36dze@HIDDEN>
 <875zk5x2v1.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <20191031012641.lam4pwo3cenf7tsu@HIDDEN>
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---)

> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 21:33:29 -0400
> From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> > Do you have a use-case in mind here?  Can't the caller just check using
> > 'file-exists-p' if it matters instead?
> 
> It _should_ *always* matter. Did you delete the file or not? If it didn't
> matter, why waste your time attempting the deletion?

The current implementation basically is a moral equivalent of "rm -f".
It also is biased towards interactive usage, where the return value is
not very important.

Does it answer your question?

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
Resent-From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:35:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.34338.B34338.15726008813404 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34338
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: wontfix
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Cc: 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, stefan@HIDDEN
Received: via spool by 34338-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B34338.15726008813404
          (code B ref 34338); Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:35:02 +0000
Received: (at 34338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Nov 2019 09:34:41 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55040 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1iQTKL-0000sq-2k
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:34:41 -0400
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]:43595)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>) id 1iQTKI-0000sb-DQ
 for 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:34:39 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net;
 s=badeba3b8450; t=1572600870;
 bh=3o9Qm8qQuYjBLXts933ajBYdvBXMRS3l0PpO/KDWnPo=;
 h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To;
 b=hCZ0bnOhSLRxVPRHWJLBOoiwFEGORV1R4wDBxmgyjSxTWkunJGEgJCZLURvVZpvyJ
 LPd7Rd2p1iOtVaxV5GwpJoTZ3E077YpbMBpJXTWnkVPLiSmL23JQWtQcrUuys5+Mr5
 8nS5OL8mYGJd1iaG659IwCsVryGWR4f7Kem9DYMU=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from E15-2016.optimum.net ([96.246.226.236]) by mail.gmx.com
 (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.184]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
 1MrhQ6-1heyx73wKC-00nlTB; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 10:34:30 +0100
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 05:34:23 -0400
From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Message-ID: <20191101093423.q6qm3eijb6ilrkpg@HIDDEN>
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
 <CADwFkmmhRAptdebg1DC5Xg9v2Xw6NagYKgL2fVBP7peqPJjaqw@HIDDEN>
 <87wocmvt5w.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <20191030222159.rwfn7clgfjh36dze@HIDDEN>
 <875zk5x2v1.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <20191031012641.lam4pwo3cenf7tsu@HIDDEN>
 <83h83pnfyq.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <83h83pnfyq.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:zho9tByaQgKFv65uZ5/FdhWegd/03b+foABF8X34AVto3fh7mIX
 Kq5yoHyQBKe6uKMlRoGgmn/X0jxJ+Mykt1/WTbaYMTstrUM1JMmKQyt+V3ewH6g3F9X6mDy
 kuZh4Uq0eTVqQsfcIOgW0F1mOvlb/SKK4DShh4TCXCHXHQRaMdwY7ZaoOLFA4k/9luGFZ9F
 QTlED3WECquEOhN/5yx7w==
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:KEmT/iitStE=:QI9TpeVm95mppxbn5g4Urd
 V+Fvy2dLme26FI98NZ4ziJaLb4sGsaMQejjhs7Kolan0unsIZJe8qgqYr639xBmlYoGgkdFA3
 xxekD9WTvysr6bqbw3u4xh4eY0+kShBv7VWmthkh/euQoQ6UCEa3keu06UW2wPvSns4DIqy/Y
 FPZoSEyhAaQv5FO2Oa6MWOqBI/NlVazcc+2VFwF1deB3bZq/gA+pSRfNJfIizh8PP81W2sn2z
 rpiXRW49XypkC2vaPg3QIcuWHtdKNrLFXD5/zHj5M+wAi8qRUyjiBuqJEuulzaTXYdOj5r+Xv
 oYPIDTyfOahk3jilRd7UMVxaebx10fec11nmjPxdbEVp1lDr1R8Q5oZriHtbPn8yXfF46WqIL
 0A5ayNjKEoTRWbnUFE0qmK+9F1ybJdfU3vZzY5P+E+U6nwdDlXNZOIEzRFbbcBUERWHItghHD
 gtTGtM0mhMMWWSSQn2hrI1ZQ0mQ39JmQ2G/WRUs6VC7S4q8Nlx/ZZfMDNUcgEQizQvk7r9yH+
 oOlyB6o9SWCas9l+QFvWcITsmGrA4Ha241vaiIjROiRkQVHZ79YXNNO4tMlIQu0E/He1DYiDr
 +Ax/cjvnBy+WkNuiMBjNVsEuE9GNrqNkLDWeFpjxsIxQTZYTxxjfIIwVne9Rb64jhAKsOBFSk
 icCndP1xTVQpnQDmkkYJnQ1v35PMFR9urdbn+Jm8lDOl6ZMfQDgYY/SUCd5JJW4nF3Rn35Vkp
 RyMhsPkhnNiefSgpn0YvhF6Y3scNvX8lJP5wK3GZs2AaopT/84Vn53VhHpF5BefZN+ujuPybu
 RflStd09pmXn4i8QQwuwGIIfSAEa4qfPKKVSQ2MYw3foBB05QsbY2LqtCHMZKZ8aD8tvVAczz
 v6cwqnXQFtTRaq1XITgs86lyYD0qj1wucuiWGaLEFlgMhThOZTrJobvoHMnvrKE8oB57XJc2E
 /MYsIjV0D1a/ed8WUTZY1eygg63qwMj6b4UflXA0Eo3AMptbEIZuOrAFFAZD44qLFvGswN3ay
 irItoylFRjOObAWdNXK2Z9hkH3K47gIxW0crSDHEsgFLebuz9Q5XXzfvCe8H4BFJLxL3A4XjK
 JJmCkS0rr/85v8K8ocKG3Mn1OkEXbqHeTK3+WHXRlIrqM+qUB1bZvznWkKiSy4u+a+Kw9OkwW
 zhL1kZAMZCXVzJEXdXyHret0Rb9JRpTXxtsuJ0yfWu/ghkYDaJb9FM9+M5MTmCmSp6Kx/61aX
 zU/N7pEyeIR3d6Gwr7uzG/fP1XG64kQlsrQjgurcVSA8VwVbz5Yzy3VFcSOM=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)

On 2019-10-31 16:32, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> The current implementation basically is a moral equivalent of "rm -f".
> It also is biased towards interactive usage, where the return value is
> not very important.
>
> Does it answer your question?

Not satisfactorily.

Applying the notion of '_moral_ equivalence' to a programming command
option strikes me as alien, but as an exercise, the only _moral_
standard that I've come up with for "rm -f" is an immoral standard of
inconsiderateness. What I mean is that someone at some time put some
sort of block on deleting a file, and you're saying that emacs as its
*default* action is to inconsiderately try to do its best to ignore any
such block. As an issue in _morality_, it sounds quite inconsiderate and
thus presumably undesirable if one's decision-basis is some form of
morality.

Independent of morality, it's also inconsistent with the default
behavior of comparable programming contexts, and thus violates POLA
(principle of least astonishment). For example, compare the default
action of the written command delete-file with your own expressed basis
... the shell command rm, run interactively from the command line.

A better comparison basis would be other forms of lisp. Rabbi Google
tells me that both common-lisp and scheme signal an error on failure.
The only other lisp I have handy to try is another GNU lisp, guile
2.0.13, which also does not signal an error on a file marked 'chmod -w'.
Outside of lisp, python behaves similarly. So that's several POLA points
in emacs' favor.

=2D-
hkp://keys.gnupg.net
CA45 09B5 5351 7C11 A9D1  7286 0036 9E45 1595 8BC0

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:56:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.34338.B34338.15726021245480 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34338
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: wontfix
To: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Cc: 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, stefan@HIDDEN
Received: via spool by 34338-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B34338.15726021245480
          (code B ref 34338); Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:56:01 +0000
Received: (at 34338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Nov 2019 09:55:24 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55058 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1iQTeO-0001QK-6x
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:55:24 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58745)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>) id 1iQTeL-0001Q2-UJ
 for 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:55:22 -0400
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:46007)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>)
 id 1iQTeE-0007LE-22; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:55:14 -0400
Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1813 helo=home-c4e4a596f7)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <eliz@HIDDEN>)
 id 1iQTeC-0004lq-Pv; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 05:55:13 -0400
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 11:55:15 +0200
Message-Id: <838sozncos.fsf@HIDDEN>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>
In-reply-to: <20191101093423.q6qm3eijb6ilrkpg@HIDDEN> (message
 from Boruch Baum on Fri, 1 Nov 2019 05:34:23 -0400)
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
 <CADwFkmmhRAptdebg1DC5Xg9v2Xw6NagYKgL2fVBP7peqPJjaqw@HIDDEN>
 <87wocmvt5w.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <20191030222159.rwfn7clgfjh36dze@HIDDEN>
 <875zk5x2v1.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <20191031012641.lam4pwo3cenf7tsu@HIDDEN>
 <83h83pnfyq.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <20191101093423.q6qm3eijb6ilrkpg@HIDDEN>
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---)

> Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 05:34:23 -0400
> From: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
> Cc: stefan@HIDDEN, 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> On 2019-10-31 16:32, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > The current implementation basically is a moral equivalent of "rm -f".
> > It also is biased towards interactive usage, where the return value is
> > not very important.
> >
> > Does it answer your question?
> 
> Not satisfactorily.

Actually, from what you wrote, it follows that it did answer your
question, you just disagree that delete-file should have been coded to
work as it does.

Please note that I didn't try to justify its behavior, only to explain
its rationale, in response to your question "If it didn't matter, why
waste your time attempting the deletion?"  IOW, there certainly _are_
valid use cases where "it doesn't matter", and the fact that "rm -f"
exists is an evidence.

Message sent to bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
Resent-From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 13:01:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.34338.B34338.157321802719570 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 34338
X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: wontfix
To: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 34338-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B34338.157321802719570
          (code B ref 34338); Fri, 08 Nov 2019 13:01:01 +0000
Received: (at 34338) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Nov 2019 13:00:27 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44928 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1iT3sI-00055Z-Tx
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 08:00:27 -0500
Received: from host.gofardesign.uk ([208.79.239.190]:44016)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <stefan@HIDDEN>)
 id 1iT3sE-00055C-6G; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 08:00:22 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=marxist.se; 
 s=default;
 h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:References:
 In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:
 Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:
 Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:
 List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive;
 bh=SMxfw4c5frKqkEPLEZ9wdrlL/nG3QNwG8TETenxOVlA=; b=fpvYdNrn2IBLlaczzMX5ecnNGS
 FDnKBiHZXozPiAWTK5xOH+DyRXkIzg/k8tcRIxA7bHA05jKcUqOrVRq25mQJ7FzXRvITFw9BejsLw
 4teubZEIbWQS7buUI3SelTnV5sabI67cuIKYKxDMJkL4MSobPQvi1G2RBef/VDiCI9b4=;
Received: from h-70-69.a785.priv.bahnhof.se ([155.4.70.69]:57690
 helo=localhost)
 by host.gofardesign.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <stefan@HIDDEN>)
 id 1iT3s3-0003r5-RV; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 07:00:12 -0600
From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <20191031012641.lam4pwo3cenf7tsu@HIDDEN> (Boruch
 Baum's message of "Wed, 30 Oct 2019 21:33:29 -0400")
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
 <CADwFkmmhRAptdebg1DC5Xg9v2Xw6NagYKgL2fVBP7peqPJjaqw@HIDDEN>
 <87wocmvt5w.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <20191030222159.rwfn7clgfjh36dze@HIDDEN>
 <875zk5x2v1.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <20191031012641.lam4pwo3cenf7tsu@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 14:00:09 +0100
Message-ID: <87h83etteu.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
 please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.gofardesign.uk
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - debbugs.gnu.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - marxist.se
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.gofardesign.uk: authenticated_id:
 stefan@HIDDEN
X-Authenticated-Sender: host.gofardesign.uk: stefan@HIDDEN
X-Source: 
X-Source-Args: 
X-Source-Dir: 
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)

tags 34338 - wontfix
reopen 34338
thanks

Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN> writes:

> On 2019-10-30 23:52, Stefan Kangas wrote:
>> Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN> writes:
>>
>> Do you have a use-case in mind here?  Can't the caller just check using
>> 'file-exists-p' if it matters instead?
>
> It _should_ *always* matter. Did you delete the file or not? If it didn't
> matter, why waste your time attempting the deletion?

I think Eli answered this point well, and I still think a use-case
would have been helpful here.  If I was trying to convince people to
spend time on this, I would try to provide a code example where the
suggested change would simplify the code and/or make maintenance
easier.

> Having delete-file return the value is: a) consistent with what I think
> is the expectation of most CS folks;

Not sure if I'm like most CS folks, but that wasn't my expectation.
IME, this works differently in different languages.

> b) the most efficient, since it already knows the exact point of any
> failure, and basically just passes the return value it gets from the
> underlying OS.

That's a good point.

In any case, I closed the bug in the belief that there was nothing
more to do here given the lack of response.  I'm not against the
change as such.

I've therefore reopened the bug in the hope that someone would want to
take a crack at implementing this.  Boruch, perhaps you could consider
volunteering?

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message received at control <at> debbugs.gnu.org:

Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Nov 2019 13:00:27 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 08 08:00:27 2019
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44930 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1iT3sJ-00055b-9N
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 08:00:27 -0500
Received: from host.gofardesign.uk ([208.79.239.190]:44016)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <stefan@HIDDEN>)
 id 1iT3sE-00055C-6G; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 08:00:22 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=marxist.se; 
 s=default;
 h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:References:
 In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:
 Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:
 Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:
 List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive;
 bh=SMxfw4c5frKqkEPLEZ9wdrlL/nG3QNwG8TETenxOVlA=; b=fpvYdNrn2IBLlaczzMX5ecnNGS
 FDnKBiHZXozPiAWTK5xOH+DyRXkIzg/k8tcRIxA7bHA05jKcUqOrVRq25mQJ7FzXRvITFw9BejsLw
 4teubZEIbWQS7buUI3SelTnV5sabI67cuIKYKxDMJkL4MSobPQvi1G2RBef/VDiCI9b4=;
Received: from h-70-69.a785.priv.bahnhof.se ([155.4.70.69]:57690
 helo=localhost)
 by host.gofardesign.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <stefan@HIDDEN>)
 id 1iT3s3-0003r5-RV; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 07:00:12 -0600
From: Stefan Kangas <stefan@HIDDEN>
To: Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#34338: 26.1; delete-file return codes and failures
In-Reply-To: <20191031012641.lam4pwo3cenf7tsu@HIDDEN> (Boruch
 Baum's message of "Wed, 30 Oct 2019 21:33:29 -0400")
References: <20190205214737.vswyk7sfmgkliv7v@HIDDEN>
 <CADwFkmmhRAptdebg1DC5Xg9v2Xw6NagYKgL2fVBP7peqPJjaqw@HIDDEN>
 <87wocmvt5w.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <20191030222159.rwfn7clgfjh36dze@HIDDEN>
 <875zk5x2v1.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <20191031012641.lam4pwo3cenf7tsu@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 14:00:09 +0100
Message-ID: <87h83etteu.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse,
 please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host.gofardesign.uk
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - debbugs.gnu.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - marxist.se
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: host.gofardesign.uk: authenticated_id:
 stefan@HIDDEN
X-Authenticated-Sender: host.gofardesign.uk: stefan@HIDDEN
X-Source: 
X-Source-Args: 
X-Source-Dir: 
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@HIDDEN>, 34338 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)

tags 34338 - wontfix
reopen 34338
thanks

Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN> writes:

> On 2019-10-30 23:52, Stefan Kangas wrote:
>> Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@HIDDEN> writes:
>>
>> Do you have a use-case in mind here?  Can't the caller just check using
>> 'file-exists-p' if it matters instead?
>
> It _should_ *always* matter. Did you delete the file or not? If it didn't
> matter, why waste your time attempting the deletion?

I think Eli answered this point well, and I still think a use-case
would have been helpful here.  If I was trying to convince people to
spend time on this, I would try to provide a code example where the
suggested change would simplify the code and/or make maintenance
easier.

> Having delete-file return the value is: a) consistent with what I think
> is the expectation of most CS folks;

Not sure if I'm like most CS folks, but that wasn't my expectation.
IME, this works differently in different languages.

> b) the most efficient, since it already knows the exact point of any
> failure, and basically just passes the return value it gets from the
> underlying OS.

That's a good point.

In any case, I closed the bug in the belief that there was nothing
more to do here given the lack of response.  I'm not against the
change as such.

I've therefore reopened the bug in the hope that someone would want to
take a crack at implementing this.  Boruch, perhaps you could consider
volunteering?

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas

Message received at fakecontrol@fakecontrolmessage:

Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage;
To: internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
From: Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs@HIDDEN>
Subject: Internal Control
Message-Id: Did not alter fixed versions and reopened.
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 13:01:02 +0000
User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9

# This is a fake control message.
#
# The action:
# Did not alter fixed versions and reopened.
thanks
# This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs
# administrator

Last modified: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:00:02 UTC

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.