June 29, 2014
11:45 a.m.
On 29 June 2014 12:08, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
This is what makes me wary of including lstat, even though Windows offers it without the extra stat call. Caching behaviour is *really* hard to make intuitive, especially when it *sometimes* returns data that looks fresh (as it on first call on POSIX systems).
If it matters that much we *could* simply call it cached_lstat(). It's ugly, but I really don't like the idea of throwing the information away - after all, the fact that we currently throw data away is why there's even a need for scandir. Let's not make the same mistake again... Paul