Re: dired-do-hardlink should update link count we see

[David Kastrup <David.Kastrup@t-online.de>]

eliz@is.elta.co.il (Eli Zaretskii) writes:

> On 9 Jul 2002, David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> > It is perfectly understandable if one thinks some things not worth
> > fixing or doing correctly.
> 
> I didn't say this isn't worth fixing, I just pointed out that it's a
> part of a general pattern.

Oh, surely, surely.  Other operations (like changing permissions, the
file name, moving files, copying them) update the info in the dired
buffer without actually rereading the directory info, so the general
pattern would certainly imply that updating the info in the dired
buffer without actually rereading the directory info would be
something entirely different.

Again, if you are planning to make sense, you better try harder.  And
just removing all relevant context from posts of mine (which you have
now done two times already) in order to repeat your unsubstantiated
claim is starting to look silly.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: David.Kastrup@t-online.de