This thread reminded me of something I'd posted a while ago:
---snip---
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:23:11 +
From: Tim Bunce tim.bu...@pobox.com
To: Richard Hainsworth rich...@rusrating.ru, perl6-language@perl.org
Subject: Re: Files, Directories, Resources, Operating Systems
On Wed, Nov 26,
If I might offer a late viewpoint after reading the Aaron's expanded
email (attached below).
When originally I suggested using 'open' instead of 'connect', the aim
was to keep consistency with the paradigm of files on the local system.
However, as Aaron's post suggests, when dealing with
Sounds like a sound generalization to make.
bikeshedding
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Richard Hainsworth
rich...@rusrating.ru wrote:
This then means that there is an implicit
$*FS.connect();
that makes the local system available to the program.
mount is the jargon to make a filesystem
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Richard Hainsworth
rich...@rusrating.ru wrote:
Would it make sense to define $*FS as the implied local file system, and
thus that a bare 'open' is sugar for
my $fh = $*FS.open('/path/to/directory/filename', :r);
This then means that there is an implicit
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Richard Hainsworth rich...@rusrating.ruwrote:
It is normally implied that a program already has a 'local' environment,
including a 'local' filesystem. Thus the syntax
my $fn = open('/path/to/directory/filename', :r) or die $!;
implies a local file sytem.
The
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 21:17 -0400, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Jun 10, 2010, at 07:22 , Leon Timmermans wrote:
I agree it should be similar to normal FS interactoin to make matters
as intuitive as possible, but I horrified by the idea of overloading
open() that way. That's a PHP
First off, I again have to caution that this thread is conflating
open with filesystem interaction. While open is one of many ways of
interacting with a filesystem, it isn't even remotely sufficient (nor
my immediate focus). One can ask for and modify filesystem metadata,
security information, and
On 06/10/2010 05:07 AM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Thursday, June 10, 2010, Leon Timmermansfaw...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree it should be similar to normal FS interactoin to make matters
as intuitive as possible, but I horrified by the idea of overloading
open() that way
But open is already
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Mark J. Reed markjr...@gmail.com wrote:
But open is already overloaded in p5, with pipes etc. We don't want
to repeat the mistakes of the past, and the fact that open(FH, $foo)
could run an arbitrary shell command was arguably a mistake, but
transparent access
Ideally [at least, what I would like], managing a file on a remote
resource should be the same as managing one locally, eg.
my Amazon $fn = open($path-to-input-file-location/$file-name, :r) or
die $!;
for $fn.readlines { };
$fn.close;
my Google $fn =
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Richard Hainsworth
rich...@rusrating.ru wrote:
Ideally [at least, what I would like], managing a file on a remote resource
should be the same as managing one locally, eg.
my Amazon $fn = open($path-to-input-file-location/$file-name, :r) or die
$!;
for
On Thursday, June 10, 2010, Leon Timmermans faw...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree it should be similar to normal FS interactoin to make matters
as intuitive as possible, but I horrified by the idea of overloading
open() that way
But open is already overloaded in p5, with pipes etc. We don't want
to
On Jun 10, 2010, at 07:22 , Leon Timmermans wrote:
I agree it should be similar to normal FS interactoin to make matters
as intuitive as possible, but I horrified by the idea of overloading
open() that way. That's a PHP mistake I wouldn't like seeing repeated.
If you want open to do something
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Aaron Sherman a...@ajs.com wrote:
Has anyone begun to consider what kind of filesystem interface we want
for things like sftp, Amazon S3, Google Storage and other remote
storage possibilities? Is there any extant work out there, or should I
just start
14 matches
Mail list logo
