From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#73709: 29.4; Doc of `file-newer-than-file-p' Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:54:07 +0300 Message-ID: <867ca8r3sw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86h69msbhi.fsf@gnu.org> <87set6aytj.fsf@web.de> <864j5l4d2x.fsf@gnu.org> <87v7y0kgl7.fsf@web.de> <861q0o2xbe.fsf@gnu.org> <87cyk7trma.fsf@web.de> <86y12vyygh.fsf@gnu.org> <87jzee88m9.fsf@web.de> <86ttdhyarp.fsf@gnu.org> <87jzed6iql.fsf@web.de> <867cacvb3k.fsf@gnu.org> <86h69gt3xt.fsf@gnu.org> <87msj6tbkv.fsf@web.de> <86ttddqy1w.fsf@gnu.org> <87o73kbsaq.fsf@web.de> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="36358"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 73709@debbugs.gnu.org, drew.adams@oracle.com To: Michael Heerdegen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 16 07:55:16 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1t0x08-0009KC-AK for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 07:55:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t0wzf-0001e9-P2; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 01:54:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t0wzc-0001dY-3j for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 01:54:44 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t0wzb-0003sL-6v for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 01:54:43 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debbugs.gnu.org; s=debbugs-gnu-org; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:To:Subject; bh=qILbXDUVWvMTFP/3YgJrqvZvNpjWogmri11v/KBF3tI=; b=ENcIlZsItluJdAJdnOgu2jwK1xJTGEXX+L2ovUdImqtwgY6yN/AF2571TNL4fwMPoahtV+JfmZdn9/7Jj7VKSRO4m4b9WB3AQx7S8g4pZtYhJW1XPjsu7+GvZ7sG4bU3TZ+bnyOvi8YJGqxpBQVnsybRAJ50Zl6Okw/enjr18ocmUoxDfEoVKFaLO16b0vJNZFNOpiJCoQkJUq1d/rUaeBUot0Zm+vAJIfFl/8Dlp+9GIhKPcawUK9sNDnTc3bq8d4fkdndL//iz8BjcYfNb7DdqII9AeLBPD2Xrxk9ETlP6gfl7BqbTjch0j9NxwIvnxDCmgqEbBod5sAgXeBT3dA==; Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1t0wzt-0005Bd-WC for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 01:55:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 05:55:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 73709 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: notabug wontfix Original-Received: via spool by 73709-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B73709.172905807719896 (code B ref 73709); Wed, 16 Oct 2024 05:55:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 73709) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Oct 2024 05:54:37 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58257 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1t0wzV-0005Ap-0w for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 01:54:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52928) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1t0wzT-0005Aa-2v for 73709@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 01:54:35 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1t0wz3-0003ra-JT; Wed, 16 Oct 2024 01:54:09 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=qILbXDUVWvMTFP/3YgJrqvZvNpjWogmri11v/KBF3tI=; b=EHK2k+Xp4Eol pCqkd6X5x3woH1/Cg9wRm4HABawmSMfEZ95CXiGBWZ4Mqhf5RhFIa8mUQ/2dS+u4mNR7af4TxyBVh qPoqCKphe/Gw00UOypkb+urmNneRdWzLBbihWS98f9I2SO4VM9rwC4006OhZ00bewEs5sqflimknG ROBWzUk9aBF42GbxdC9pVkwiPBF3resr3MO4D5CkMG9+r/cbbl1F97IVjcivyvUxw9GYcIFnNiPvz JMe2eN9bDeyD/wailR2c1i2dQeKJTcwbm6kBN/0hxjkRnhVfqgRKjjWGrl56Gp87+L/u1kpxLmdNT 1L5e2fnLgGIZMmMf2L6cJg==; In-Reply-To: <87o73kbsaq.fsf@web.de> (message from Michael Heerdegen on Wed, 16 Oct 2024 06:11:41 +0200) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:293661 Archived-At: > From: Michael Heerdegen > Cc: drew.adams@oracle.com, 73709@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 06:11:41 +0200 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > "Last saved" assumes the file is edited, but this function doesn't > > care whether a file has been edited. "Last written to" might be > > better. > > Ok - "last written" then. > > > But the problem for which I find no good solution is that there are > > ways to make the filesystem lie to us about when was file last written > > to: use set-file-times in Emacs or the 'touch' shell command or > > anything similar. > > Sure. But I thought we want to explain the abstraction? So, if you > don't want to lie, why not say "in general this means the times when the > files were last written" or so? As you said we _don't_ want to go to > the level of implementation and file system specific details - so why > discuss them at all? There are always details a short description > doesn't cover ("newer" also didn't cover them). > > Of course you can add that "details depend on capabilities and features > of the used file system and the chosen implementation (Tramp)". We do > say similar things in other docstrings, too. Two issues: . "last written to" is incorrect if that time stamp was modified by set-file-times and similar methods . the interpretation of mtime to mean "newer" (per the function's name) is problematic/incorrect when a file is copied with the KEEP-TIME argument of copy-file (and similar facilities of other commands, like 'cp') I'm asking whether we care about these subtleties. E.g., someone might claim that the second issue above means that file-newer-than-file-p has a bug. The current doc string says simply that last-modification times are compared, and I wonder if that is not better left alone.