|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Ruby Programming Language
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Deleting a file - is there a less clumsy way to do this?
In my application, I often have blocks of code, where during preparation
code, I need to make sure that certain files do not exist (in practice,
this might be files left over from a previous run, which I didn't want
to have erased earlier). Basically, I am doing something like this:
if File.exist?(filename)
File.unlink(filename)
end
or, equivalently,
begin
File.unlink(filename)
rescue
# ignore errors - it's OK if the file does not exist
end
This is necessary, because File::unlink signals non-existence of the
file
using an exception, instead by return code (as, for example, Perl's
unlink
does). The resulting code looks clumsy, because one always has to take
care
of an exception, which does not really signal an error condition (in
Perl,
I would simply ignore the return code of unlink).
Of course I could write my own unlink function like this:
def silent_unlink(f)
File.unlink(f) if File.exist?(f)
end
..
silent_unlink(filename)
but I am wondering whether this is not a such common problem, that Ruby
already might have a non-exception-throwing unlink function built in
somewhere?
Ronald
--
Ronald Fischer <ronald.fisc@venyon.com>
Phone: +49-89-452133-162
Ronald Fischer wrote: > but I am wondering whether this is not a such common problem, that Ruby > already might have a non-exception-throwing unlink function built in > somewhere? > Ronald
best,
Dan
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
In message <387E9FC1619C0849BA8934938037E54F088@sv-muc-004.venyon-mail.local>, "Ronald Fisch
er" writes:
>if File.exist?(filename)
> File.unlink(filename)
>end
>or, equivalently,
>begin
> File.unlink(filename)
>rescue=20
> # ignore errors - it's OK if the file does not exist
>end=20
These are not equivalent. There are other possible reasons for which an unlink
attempt could fail! Consider what happens if two programs run through that
first example at the same time.
That said, I would love a non-exception-raising way to try an unlink.
-s
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:14:49PM +0900, Ronald Fischer wrote: > In my application, I often have blocks of code, where during preparation > code, I need to make sure that certain files do not exist (in practice, > this might be files left over from a previous run, which I didn't want > to have erased earlier). Basically, I am doing something like this: > if File.exist?(filename)
> File.unlink(filename)
> end
> or, equivalently,
> begin
> File.unlink(filename)
> rescue
> # ignore errors - it's OK if the file does not exist
> end
> This is necessary, because File::unlink signals non-existence of the
> file
> using an exception, instead by return code (as, for example, Perl's
> unlink
> does). The resulting code looks clumsy, because one always has to take
> care
> of an exception, which does not really signal an error condition (in
> Perl,
> I would simply ignore the return code of unlink).
File.unlink(filename) rescue nil
However this catches everything under StandardError (I think), including
NoMethodError. So if you type
File.unlikn(filename) rescue nil
then you won't see the typo.
> Of course I could write my own unlink function like this: > def silent_unlink(f)
> File.unlink(f) if File.exist?(f)
> end
> ...
> silent_unlink(filename)
test and the unlink. So this code *may* raise an exception, very
occasionally.
You may think this isn't a realistic problem, but race conditions which
cause crashes once in a blue moon are extremely hard to pin down. So it's a
good aim to try and write code without races if at all possible.
It's also more efficient to try to remove the file, rather than to test for
its existence (stat) *and* then try to remove it afterwards.
Regards,
Brian.
Ronald Fischer wrote: > In my application, I often have blocks of code, where during preparation > code, I need to make sure that certain files do not exist (in practice, > this might be files left over from a previous run, which I didn't want > to have erased earlier). Basically, I am doing something like this: > if File.exist?(filename)
> File.unlink(filename)
> end
File.delete(filename) if File.exist?(filename)
That doesn't look so bad. :-)
Jamey
> > Basically, I am doing something like this: > > if File.exist?(filename)
> > File.unlink(filename)
> > end
> You can get it down to one line by doing this:
> File.delete(filename) if File.exist?(filename)
> That doesn't look so bad. :-)
but of the complexity, in particular since this variation
requires to name "filename" twice.
(side note: why does this remind me to the ongoing thread
"Introducing the "it" keyword"..... ;-)
In Perl for instance, I would simply write
unlink filename;
and implicitly void the result...
Ronald
> File.unlink(filename) rescue nil > However this catches everything under StandardError (I
> think), including
> NoMethodError. So if you type
> File.unlikn(filename) rescue nil
> then you won't see the typo.
too risky, as typos would be ignored too.
> > def silent_unlink(f) > > File.unlink(f) if File.exist?(f) > > end > > ... > > silent_unlink(filename) > FYI, that code has a "race" - the existence of a file may
> change between the
> test and the unlink. So this code *may* raise an exception, very
> occasionally.
Ronald
On Jun 4, 9:26 am, "Ronald Fischer" <ronald.fisc@venyon.com> wrote:
> > > Basically, I am doing something like this: > > > if File.exist?(filename)
> > > File.unlink(filename)
> > > end
> > You can get it down to one line by doing this:
> > File.delete(filename) if File.exist?(filename)
> > That doesn't look so bad. :-)
> Well, I'm not so much concerned about the *lines* of code,
> but of the complexity, in particular since this variation
> requires to name "filename" twice.
> (side note: why does this remind me to the ongoing thread
> "Introducing the "it" keyword"..... ;-)
> In Perl for instance, I would simply write
> unlink filename;
> and implicitly void the result...
> Ronald
process had an open handle on the file in question, i.e. the file
_does_ exist, but you did not delete it.
Regards,
Dan
On Jun 4, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Daniel Berger wrote:
> On Jun 4, 9:26 am, "Ronald Fischer" <ronald.fisc @venyon.com> wrote: >>>> Basically, I am doing something like this: >>>> if File.exist?(filename)
>>>> File.unlink(filename)
>>>> end
>>> You can get it down to one line by doing this:
>>> File.delete(filename) if File.exist?(filename)
>>> That doesn't look so bad. :-)
>> Well, I'm not so much concerned about the *lines* of code,
>> but of the complexity, in particular since this variation
>> requires to name "filename" twice.
>> (side note: why does this remind me to the ongoing thread
>> "Introducing the "it" keyword"..... ;-)
>> In Perl for instance, I would simply write
>> unlink filename;
>> and implicitly void the result...
>> Ronald
> Note that this approach would silently fail on MS Windows if another
> process had an open handle on the file in question, i.e. the file
> _does_ exist, but you did not delete it.
> Regards,
> Dan
Or find out if the file is in use and then wait?
On Jun 4, 11:42 am, John Joyce <dangerwillrobinsondan@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Daniel Berger wrote: > > On Jun 4, 9:26 am, "Ronald Fischer" <ronald.fisc@venyon.com> wrote:
> >>>> Basically, I am doing something like this:
> >>>> if File.exist?(filename)
> >>>> File.unlink(filename)
> >>>> end
> >>> You can get it down to one line by doing this:
> >>> File.delete(filename) if File.exist?(filename)
> >>> That doesn't look so bad. :-)
> >> Well, I'm not so much concerned about the *lines* of code,
> >> but of the complexity, in particular since this variation
> >> requires to name "filename" twice.
> >> (side note: why does this remind me to the ongoing thread
> >> "Introducing the "it" keyword"..... ;-)
> >> In Perl for instance, I would simply write
> >> unlink filename;
> >> and implicitly void the result...
> >> Ronald
> > Note that this approach would silently fail on MS Windows if another
> > process had an open handle on the file in question, i.e. the file
> > _does_ exist, but you did not delete it.
> > Regards,
> > Dan
> so check success by checking File.exists? again...?
> Or find out if the file is in use and then wait?- Hide quoted text -
>
File.delete(file)
rescue Errno::EACCES
puts "There's an open handle somewhere"
raise
rescue Errno::ENOENT
# Ignore
end
Regards,
Dan
Jamey Cribbs wrote: > You can get it down to one line by doing this: > File.delete(filename) if File.exist?(filename)
> That doesn't look so bad. :-)
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> > but I am wondering whether this is not a such common > problem, that Ruby > > already might have a non-exception-throwing unlink function built in > > somewhere? > > Ronald
> FileUtils.rm_f(filename) ?
Ronald
--
Ronald Fischer <ronald.fisc@venyon.com>
Phone: +49-89-452133-162
> > In Perl for instance, I would simply write > > unlink filename;
> > and implicitly void the result...
> Note that this approach would silently fail on MS Windows if another
> process had an open handle on the file in question, i.e. the file
> _does_ exist, but you did not delete it.
(1) Created a file xx
(2) From a cygwin bash shell, made a tail -f on the file.
(3) Started an editor (Scite) on that file. Made some changes to the
file. Saved them. Made more changes in the editor.
Now there should be two open handles on the file: At least the tail -f,
and very likely also from Scite (though this depends on how Scite is
implemented).
Now, from irb, I did a
File.delete 'xx'
Went well. No ecxeption. File was deleted afterwards.
Ronald
--
Ronald Fischer <ronald.fisc@venyon.com>
Phone: +49-89-452133-162
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add to del.icio.us |
Digg this |
Stumble it |
Powered by Megasolutions Inc