On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 01:14:05PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >>>>> "JSD" == Jonathan Scott Duff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> I'll revise the RFC to add 'readable()', 'writable()', and such
> >> synonyms for -r and -w that are more like 'use english' and less like
> >> 'use English'.
>
>
> i have a minor problem with the names readable and writeable. i am
> currently using them as method names in a major project i have
> created. they are callbacks (see my recent callback rfc) which mean the
> socket is readable/writeable. maybe put some sort of prefix on them to
> designate them as file test operators so we don't clutter up the
> namespace so much.
I don't think so. The file test operators should be generalizeable
across all input channels, including sockets. Their synonyms should
be as well. See RFC 239 for details.
I'm actually less concerned that readable() and writeable() enter the
core grammar as much as I'm concerned that they're easy to find
intelligently named across the board. On the one hand, they could
be integrated into RFC239 for filehandles. On the other hand,
RFC239 doesn't address object interfaces on filenames.
Maybe it'll be easier to rename the callbacks? They're common
names with easily overloaded meanings, and should be reserved
for the most common usage.
Z.
