Alan Jaffray wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Chris Devers wrote: > > Out of curiosity, rather than just bundling in the "right" module for > > this, why isn't the builtin function the more/most reliable option? > > Instead of giving a function that has such caveats and a separate library > > that should work better, why not fix the function? > > Lots of perl functions, rename included, are just wrappers around Unix > system calls. It just happens that the rename system call isn't usually > what you want when you're renaming a file... > > Would it be better language design to actually define sensible and > portable behavior for functions that do OS-ish things, rather than > pass them along the underlying OS and wash our hands of them? Well, > yeah. But it's a legacy we're stuck with, at least for Perl5...
when perl 6 is out and stable, Linux will be completely rewritten in perl and compiled down to C. The default shell will be PeSh. Environment variables will be perl variables in package "Environment::", which will be global and persistent. Shell scripts will be perl scripts. Processes will be handled as perl threads. and all will be right with the world. ;-) One Perl to rule them all, One Perl to bind them, Greg
