Re: Optional argument for `file-local-copy'

[Stefan Monnier]

>> No: if the handler ignores the argument and the caller doesn't delete
>> the file, we're left with a garbage file that noone will delete.
> Like today.

There's a big difference: with today's file-local-copy the caller is
always responsible to delete the file, so if the caller doesn't delete
the file, it's a bug in the caller.

With your proposal, if it's not the responsibility of the caller, then
it necessarily ends up being the handler's responsibility.  Hence my
earlier complaint that the handler is not allowed to simply ignore the
new argument.


        Stefan