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

[David Kastrup]

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

> On 9 Jul 2002, David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> > So if your claim was to be
> > what you claim, it was utterly irrelevant to the report.
> 
> I don't think it was irrelevant.

It is perfectly understandable if one thinks some things not worth
fixing or doing correctly.  There is something like priorities.
Playing semantic games and going into denial is not necessary if one
does not want to indulge personally into fixing a problem, and it may
keep others from doing so.

Short summary:
Almost all dired operations update the buffer (without actually
rereading the directory) according to their knowledge about the
affected change.  dired-do-hardlink doesn't adjust the link count
which changes predictably.  That's what Dan reported.

You first claimed that dired operations don't update the buffer, then
you claimed that this was supposed to mean dired does not reread the
directory in order to update the buffer.  Since rereading the
directory is not necessary for predicting the changed link count,
this interpretation of your original claim would make it irrelevant.

You beg to differ.  Since you are in effect asking that the current
behavior not be changed for the sake of some perceived consistency,
it might be good to back up your claim before some misguided soul
might be tempted into changing Emacs' behavior in that regard.

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