This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of NAD status.
Section: 99 [filesys.ts::fs.op.rename] Status: NAD Submitter: CH-18 Opened: 2014-01-20 Last modified: 2017-02-03
Priority: Not Prioritized
View all issues with NAD status.
POSIX guarantees some kind of atomicity for rename().
Clarify that POSIX' rename() guarantee "If the rename() function fails for any reason other than [EIO], any file named by new shall be unaffected." holds for C++ as well.
[2014-02-10 Beman Dawes]Section 2.1, POSIX conformance, [fs.conform.9945] specifies the POSIX conformance requirements for TS implementations in carefully crafted and specific detail. Repeating a portion of the POSIX standard's specification for a particular TS function would do great harm as it would bring into question all of the portions of the POSIX specification for the function that were not repeated. Furthermore, all the caveats and other details of the 2.1 specification would have to be analyzed and possibly appended; it ties the hands of implementors if they are not given latitude to deviate as needed when working with non-POSIX operating systems. I strongly recommend NAD for this issue.
[2014-02-13 LWG/SG-3 Issaquah: No consensus for change.]