Leon Timmermans writes: > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:37 PM, <pugs-comm...@feather.perl6.nl> wrote: > > +=item method IO dup() > > Do we really want that?
If we label a thing as "POSIX", it should certainly make all the POSIX functionality available, IMHO. I'd consider arguments that we should pick different names for specific functions where the POSIX names are particularly awkward, but I think a good default would be to match the names as well. Or else avoid the label "POSIX". > POSIX' dup does something different from what many will expect. In > particular, the new file descriptors share the offset, which can > result in some really confusing situations. To my knowledge, there's no alternative -- that is, there's no POSIX functionality which allows the creation of a file descriptor open on the same underlying object as an existing fd, but with its own file offset. Assuming I'm right, that doesn't mean users shouldn't get access to POSIX dup() for when it *is* what they want. I agree that also providing a less surprising method would be a good thing, assuming it can be widely implemented. But it needn't live in IO::POSIX. -- Aaron Crane ** http://aaroncrane.co.uk/