On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 07:43:23PM -0500, brian d foy wrote:
> As I was playing around with dirhandles, I thought "What if..." (which
> is actualy sorta fun to do in Pugs, where Perl 5 has everything
> documented somewhere even if nobody has read it).
>
> My goal is modest: explain fewer things in the Llama. If dirhandles
> were like filehandles, there's a couple of pages of explanation I don't
> need to go through.
>
> Witness:
>
> I can iterate through the elements of a named array with [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> my @a = < 1 2 3 4 5 >;
> for [EMAIL PROTECTED] { .say } # but not =< 1 2 3 4 5 > :(
>
> and I can read lines from a file:
>
> for =$fh { .say }
>
> Should I be able to go through a directory handle that way too? A "yes"
> answer would be very pleasing :)
>
> my $dh = "doc".opendir;
> for =$dh { .say } # doesn't work in pugs
>
> And, since we're using objects now, .closedir can really just be
> .close, right?
>
> And, maybe this has been already done, but wrapping a lazy filter
> around anything that can return items. I'm not proposing this as a
> language feature, but if many things shared the same way of getting the
> next item, perhaps I could wrap it in a lazy map-ish thingy:
>
> my $general_iterator = lazy_mappish_thingy( "doc".opendir );
>
> for =$general_iterator { .say }
>
> $general_iterator.close; # or .end, or .whatever
>
> That last part is definetely not Llama material, but maybe I'll at
> least hit the haystack.
One of the things done for Perl 5.10 is to make dirhandles be a little
bit more like filehandles. On OS's that allow it, things like
stat DIRHANDLE
-X DIRHANDLE
chdir DIRHANDLE
all make sense and do what you'd think they'd do.
Steve Peters
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
