Julia supports Windows, which is not a posix platform. So while Julia uses
posix-inspired names in some places, that's not universally the case, and
they're often jargony and confusing if you're not a Unix user.
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 1:30:25 PM UTC-7, Evan Fields wrote:
>
> Which
Which can get gnarly on Windows, depending how you launched Julia. E.g.
just launching from the Julia executable:
shell> ls
ERROR: could not spawn `ls`: no such file or directory (ENOENT)
in _jl_spawn(::String, ::Array{String,1}, ::Ptr{Void}, ::Base.Process,
::RawFD, ::RawFD, ::RawFD) at
There's already shell mode:
;cd projects
;ls
in the REPL.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:56 PM, wrote:
> > There are POSIX standards for new programming language function names?
>
> No, but you've implemented functions with POSIX names
>
> > yes, ls() could be a better
> There are POSIX standards for new programming language function names?
No, but you've implemented functions with POSIX names
> yes, ls() could be a better name
In the REPL, I might
julia> cd("projects")
And want to
julia> ls()
to see what's there
But, I probably wouldn't want to do that
readdir is POSIX: http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/readdir.3.html
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Chris Rackauckas
wrote:
> Here it is: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/3376. Would
> changing to ls be back on the table?
>
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at
Here it is: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/3376. Would changing
to ls be back on the table?
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 9:41:55 AM UTC-7, Stefan Karpinski
wrote:
>
> There are POSIX standards for new programming language function names? But
> yes, ls() could be a better
There are POSIX standards for new programming language function names? But
yes, ls() could be a better name.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Adrian Lewis
wrote:
> > You can find a thread/issue where this is discussed. Some group decided
> to call it readdir() and
> You can find a thread/issue where this is discussed. Some group decided
to call it readdir() and like it more. I just got used to it. I think it's
silly, but it's just syntax.
I thought it might be an idea to stick with POSIX standards.
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 4:40:03 PM UTC+1,
You can find a thread/issue where this is discussed. Some group decided to
call it readdir() and like it more. I just got used to it. I think it's
silly, but it's just syntax.
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 7:36:18 AM UTC-7, Jacob Quinn wrote:
>
> readdir()
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:34
readdir()
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Adrian Lewis
wrote:
> In the filesystem package, if we have pwd() and cd(), why do we not have
> ls()?
>
> Aidy
>
In the filesystem package, if we have pwd() and cd(), why do we not have
ls()?
Aidy
11 matches
Mail list logo