Ed,
Thanks for the information -- the [+ +] issue is a minor annoyance, but I can
understand the pure intentions behind it. When you say chdir was disabled, is it
advised, then, to just use absolute paths for file I/O? And why does this chdir
change not apply to the Execute() function -- or does it?
Thanks for your patience -- I'm a pretty solid perl hacker, but Embperl's inner
workings are over my head in most cases.
Thanks,
Philippe
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 5:17 PM
To: Hall, Philippe
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: pwd is '/' ???
On Thu, 27 May 2004, Hall, Philippe wrote:
> Ok I'll say up front that this is my first time setting up EmbPerl 2
> and Apache 2, but I've used EmbPerl 1.3 for a few years now. Here's
> my issue, which I just discovered about an hour ago:
I haven't moved to EmbPerl 2 yet, but I've been keeping an eye on its
issues, as I would like to do so with as little pain as possible.
> I have an .epl, subs.epl, which renders fine. I have the following
> line of code that is dying:
>
> open (FILEHANDLE, 'sites.txt') or die 'Cannot open sites.txt: '.$!;
>
> And 'sites.txt' does exist in the same directory as subs.epl, and the
> permissions are all good. The page dies and I get a file not found
> error from embperl. So, to debug, I added the following line above my
> filehandle open:
>
> [- print OUT `pwd`; -]
>
> Strangely enough, my pwd is '/'. Since I'm in the process of
> migrating from my old Embperl 1.3 box to this new box, I added the
> same print statement to the 1.3 counterpart of subs.epl. The pwd on
> that box is correct -- the directory containing subs.epl (as
> expected).
>
> So does anyone know why I'm getting this behavior in Embperl 2.0?
chdir was removed for performance and cross-platform uniformity. Note
that chdir did not happen on all platforms in 1.3, so this isn't a
change for everyone.
> Another thing I notice (but presumably unrelated): I can't have more
> than one statement in a [+ +] block any more... is that right? I get
> a syntax error.
That is correct.
Apparently, the intention of [+ +] blocks is simple output; there were
some issues that were complicated by having complex statements, so
complex statements were disabled. If you want to have a complex
statement, put it in a perl subroutine.
Ed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
