Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:50:20 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: portable equivalent to djgpp `update'
In-Reply-To: <20010606104619.B18924@kendall.sfbr.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010606184903.18730B-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, JT Williams wrote:

> But, it seems that `update' and `move-if-change' are different
> enough to be dangerous:
> 
>         update:  copy src -> dest
> 
>         move-if-change: _move_ src -> dest
>                         _remove_ src if src==dest       (ouch!)

If you really want the `update' behavior, you need a trivial change to 
move-if-change.  In the cases where move-if-change is used, its operation 
isn't dangerous.