Leon (>):
> Reading this discussion, I'm getting the feeling that filename
> literals are increasingly getting magical, something that I don't
> think is a good development. The only sane way to deal with filenames
> is treating them as opaque binary strings, making any more assumptions
> is bound to get you into trouble. I don't want to deal with Windows'
> strange restrictions on characters when I'm working on Linux. I don't
> want to deal with any other platform's particularities either.
> Portability should be positive, not negative IMNSHO.
> As for comparing paths: reimplementing logic that belongs to the
> filesystem sounds like really Bad Idea™ to me. Two paths can't be
> reliably compared without choosing to make some explicit assumptions,
> and I don't think Perl should make such choices for the programmer.

Very nicely put. We can't predict the future, but in creating
something that'll at least persist through the next decade, let's not
do elaborate things with lots of moving parts.

Let's make a solid ground to stand on; something so stable that it
works uphill and underwater. People with expertise and tuits will
write the facilitating modules.

<PerlJam> To quote Kernighan and Pike:  Simplicity. Clarity. Generality.
<moritz_> I agree.
<Matt-W> magic can always be added with module goodness

// Carl

Reply via email to