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




Reply via email to