Em Sex, 2009-02-06 às 02:07 -0500, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH escreveu: > >> +=head2 IO::POSIX > >> + > >> +Indicates that this object can perform standard posix IO operations. > > I don't like that wording, but getting it right seems tricky. > Do we want/need to deal with POSIX conformance levels?
When I suggested the name IO::POSIX, it was certainly pointing in that direction. Someone with a deeper understanding on that matter could certainly help mapping that out. In a pratical sense, we're probably going to see IO::Linux26 which might "does IO::POSIXsomelevel" as well as "does IO::BSDinpart" and "does IO::SysVsomewhat". Additionally, we may have "IO::Win32" which doesn't seem to fit in any of those roles... > I would think fcntl() is just the Unix version of a more general > concept, which is probably wider than POSIX. Maybe this wider concepts can be expressed in their own roles, as already been suggested here, as we have IO::Readable and IO::Writeable. IO::Flock is something that looks right to me, where IO::Linux26 does IO::Flock (even if IO::POSIX doesn't). (I use flock as an example because I'm not sure how fcntl applies to a non-posix OS, since that's the name of a POSIX function). > Even given this, if we want compatibility we might provide stuff in > IO::POSIX (IO::VMS, IO::Windows, whatever) which translates to these > calls. I think that's up to the more concrete roles IO::Linux26, IO::Win32 IO::Solaris etc daniel