From murdoch.duncan at gmail.com  Fri Sep 30 18:45:47 2016
From: murdoch.duncan at gmail.com (Duncan Murdoch)
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 12:45:47 -0400
Subject: [Rd] Sys.setFileTime()
In-Reply-To: <CAA-FpKUdCiOkY8k1EuNHQGs-xEy9PO0LFFWokoniUH4rE6LwQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA-FpKUdCiOkY8k1EuNHQGs-xEy9PO0LFFWokoniUH4rE6LwQA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8e695093-9646-9ceb-f94a-86f4c7825127@gmail.com>

On 30/09/2016 10:45 AM, Bob Rudis wrote:
> Since there has been a recent tweak to the functionality of
> Sys.setFileTime() I thought it might be an opportune time to ask a question
> regarding the decision to set both access and modification times
> (i.e. settime.actime = settime.modtime = (int)ftime; ) vs provide a
> parameter for each.

Do note that it doesn't do that on Windows; it only sets the mtime. 
However, one of us has a memory that on some versions of Windows that 
counts as an access, so both may end up being changed.

>
> Might it be possible to change the behavior to accept two parameters (one
> for active and one for modtime) but default to setting both the same (to
> preserve existing functionality)?
> If there was a compelling reason to have it set both and not allow distinct
> settings, that's not an issue (I'll just keep it as a local utility
> function in my personal pkg).

It would be possible to change, but would take time.  Since we don't 
need it for R's purposes, and you already have it, it seems like a low 
priority.

Duncan Murdoch



[Rd] Sys.setFileTime()
Duncan Murdoch