On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 03:57:48PM +0100, Rafael Garcia-Suarez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > H.Merijn Brand wrote: > > On Mon 20 Dec 2004 01:55, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 03:25:40AM -0800, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > > > > > What's the portability trap? > > > > > > > > Not croaking on C< stat $foo; -l _ >, transferring the code to an OS > > > > where > > > > lstat works, and only then seeing the error. > > > > > > Ahh, ok. I thought you were trying to "fix" the C< lstat $foo; -l _ > on > > > Windows case by adding another error. I understand now. > > > > "Give this a whirl" now leads to you guys having tested it? > > I can aply, but without any testing or feedback, I feel kinda dangerous > > Please don't, I just glanced at it yet and I'm not yet sure it works :p
Can we agree in principle on the tests? (That the error should apply to win32, but that even where there is no real lstat, perl should keep track of whether stat or lstat was used.)
