You forget that open() handles all the magic. "| ...", " ...|", and
the rest of the family. Sysopen specifically doesn't. So one could
easily (and does) use open to do the magic, and then uses sysread/syswrite
to handle the dirty details of playing with a pipe.
Oh, before I forget, one also needs to use sysread/syswrite if one is
doing 4 arg select.
Now, sysread/syswrite might possibly be eliminated if perl6 has its own
stdio replacement and direct access or at a minimum coordination between
4 arg select and buffering were properly handled. (Calling Mr. Dan,
Calling Mr. Dan...)
<chaim>
>>>>> "NW" == Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
NW> Chaim Frenkel wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> "NW" == Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
NW> # Replaced by 'open sys'
NW> sysopen
NW> sysread # sys->read instead
NW> syswrite # sys->write instead
>>
>> sysread and syswrite also work on files that were opened via standard
>> open. It bypasses the stdio library.
NW> Yeah, I know. The question is how frequently this is used.
NW> Since you can't mix read/print with sysread/syswrite, my suspicion is
NW> that most people use sysopen and then sysread/syswrite, or open then
NW> read/print. This is what I've always done, personally (but then again
NW> I'm not everyone either). :-)
NW> Since sysopen only takes a few extra args, I don't think it's too much
NW> of a hassle to require sysopen for sysread/syswrite access. It also
NW> makes it clear this is a special type of file access that doesn't (and
NW> shouldn't!) obey formats, regular reads/prints, etc.
NW> That's my input. If lots of people are against me we can change this.
NW> -Nate
--
Chaim Frenkel Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-718-236-0183
