Skip Menu |

This queue is for tickets about the File-Path CPAN distribution.

Report information
The Basics
Id: 106079
Status: rejected
Priority: 0/
Queue: File-Path

People
Owner: Nobody in particular
Requestors: RICHE [...] cpan.org
Cc:
AdminCc:

Bug Information
Severity: Wishlist
Broken in: (no value)
Fixed in: (no value)



Subject: RFE: ability to leverage "trash"
From TODO: Consider adding File::Remove trash() functionality.
On Sat Jul 25 06:39:47 2015, RICHE wrote: Show quoted text
> From TODO: > > Consider adding File::Remove trash() functionality.
Can you elaborate on what trash() would do?
On Wed Jul 29 22:04:46 2015, JKEENAN wrote: Show quoted text
> On Sat Jul 25 06:39:47 2015, RICHE wrote:
> > From TODO: > > > > Consider adding File::Remove trash() functionality.
> > > Can you elaborate on what trash() would do?
Okay, so I read the documentation at http://search.cpan.org/dist/File-Remove/. My gut feeling is: No, we should not implement this. Given all the *other* grief we're getting about the File::Path removal functionality, I don't see the gain in re-implementing something that, if someone really wants it, can be found on CPAN. (Though someone should attend to File::Remove's bug queue, as ADAMK is less active these days and the last CPAN version of this module dates from 2011.) Thank you very much. Jim Keenan
Show quoted text
> > Okay, so I read the documentation at http://search.cpan.org/dist/File- > Remove/. > > My gut feeling is: No, we should not implement this. Given all the > *other* grief we're getting about the File::Path removal > functionality, I don't see the gain in re-implementing something that, > if someone really wants it, can be found on CPAN. (Though someone > should attend to File::Remove's bug queue, as ADAMK is less active > these days and the last CPAN version of this module dates from 2011.) > > Thank you very much. > Jim Keenan
Yes, to me it's superfluous and doesn't belong in File::Path at all. The only possible rationale for it is if we ever wanted to add "transactional" functionality, which again I think is too much sugar. In such case this RFE is rejected.