[% setvar title unlink() should be left alone %]
|Note: these documents may be out of date. Do not use as reference!|
To see what is currently happening visit http://www.perl6.org/
unlink() should be left alone
Maintainer: Nathan Wiger <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 4 Aug 2000 Last Modified: 14 Aug 2000 Mailing List: email@example.com Number: 29 Version: 2 Status: Frozen
This RFC was discussed on perl6-language-unlink with no objections. It has been frozen in its current format.
Some people have suggested that unlink() is too Unix centric, that that it should be renamed to something like delete() or remove().
This should not happen. unlink() should remain unlink().
While on the surface, renaming unlink() may seem like a not-too-bad-idea, in reality it has many bad parts:
1. It confuses experienced Perl, C, and Unix programmers 2. It makes link() and symlink() almost non-sensical 3. It's possible to have more than one link to a file in Unix, meaning unlink() != delete(). 4. It's a useless change. It's not broken.
Renaming a function just for the sake of renaming a function, when in reality it works identically to the native C counterpart, does not add value to Perl 6.
Nothing to be done!
For those that are adamant about this, I suggest that they consider writing a module, say "Win32::Synonyms", that could be composed of typeglobs:
*delete = \&CORE::unlink;
With better referencing in Perl 6 this should be easily possible. However, I think it's RABID (Really A Bad IDea) at best.
RFC 28: Perl should stay Perl, by Simon Cozens
Unix unlink(2) man page