in reply to Re^12: Renaming an image file
in thread Renaming an image file

But I think it's really, really bad to give the OP an advice that may cause to data loss, and then, if it's pointed out, try to wiggle out of it by making assumptions on the OPs system.

Its not that bad. To answer the question you have to make some assumptions, like taking the OP at his word. You want better advice, ask better questions.

And btw, none is trying to wiggle out of anything. I think its poor form to go off tangent on other peoples advice, when what you really wanted was to tell the OP that his requirements are unclear

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^14: Renaming an image file
by JavaFan (Canon) on Nov 29, 2010 at 11:18 UTC
    Uhm, I don't find anything unclear about the OPs request. It certainly doesn't provide any wiggle space to come up with a solution that makes it possible to delete data. Now, I don't BrowserUK realized the chance of collision is 1 if there are duplicated files when he suggested to hash on file content; but after morgon pointed this out, Anonymous Monk presented that as a feature. That was what I was objecting to, and then BrowserUK came back he couldn't see data loss is happening, using some assumptions on how the OPs environment may look like.

    Instead if people had said "you know, morgon is right, hashing on content has a much higher chance of collisions than hashing on file names", instead of defending the bad advice, this long subthread wouldn't have happened.

    But Perl is a religion, isn't? We don't admit mistakes or better points of view.

[reply]
      But Perl is a religion, isn't? We don't admit mistakes or better points of view.

      You know thats bullshit

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom