On May 4, 2005, at 8:13 AM, Uri Guttman wrote:
AS> Why? Because IO::Socket.new takes parameters that are built out of its
AS> entire inheritance tree, so a change to IO::Handle might radically
AS> modify the signature of the constructor.

makes sense. we should look at the p5 IO:: tree and see what we want to
salvage/savage from it as well as io::all. each has its good and bad
points and hopefully we can figure out which is which. :)

Yes. p5 IO:: has evolved a bit over time and some things have turned out to be bad choices in hindsight.

For example, one thing I am still not convinced was the right thing was to create a hierarchy such that a given class only had methods that were valid for it. For example the recent issue on p5p with seek etc not being in IO::Handle but IO::Seekable and the core using IO::Handle.

Also the way IO::Socket::* was done instead of all sockets created by IO::Socket->new

these are all things that should be reconsidered and I am sure in all cases there will be people on both sides of the fence


Reply via email to