On Sat, Aug 12, 2000 at 11:01:30PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote:
> What hasn't been discussed, is
>
> Are files (or perhaps resources) named natively or in a portable fashion?
>
> If portable, then
> for (@ARGV) { open $_; ... }
> has to DWIM both portable and native formats.
>
> If native, then the URI has problems.
I'd say that the naming of files is up to the user. If they choose to
name them in a portable fashion, they get the advantage of that for
loop working.
> There also comes the overhead (programming effort) of converting
> _some_ resource names to native format for output to the user.
> And deciding which of those resource names should be transformed
> will be tough.
Whatever the user gives Perl is what Perl will give back to the user.
> And how does one open sockets or connections to custom servers?
>
> Will open take over the work of socket() and family? What is the
> resource supposed to look like?
I've thought of this as well and I think that open() *could* take over
socket() et alia but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that idea yet.
Here are some imaginings:
$fh = open "socket://www.perl.com:80:tcp"; # Hrm
$fh = open socket "tcp://www.perl.com:80";
$fh = open socket "www.perl.com:80", "tcp";
$fh = open socket machine => "www.perl.com",
port => 80,
proto => "tcp";
-Scott
--
Jonathan Scott Duff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
