Re: RFC 290 (v2) Better english names for -X

2000-09-27 Thread Uri Guttman
"PRL" == Perl6 RFC Librarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: PRL -r freadable() PRL -w fwriteable() PRL -x fexecable() PRL -o fowned() PRL -R Freadable() PRL -W Fwriteable() PRL -X Fexecable() PRL -O Fowned() PRL -e fexists() PRL

Re: RFC 290 (v2) Better english names for -X

2000-09-27 Thread Adam Turoff
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:48:33AM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote: "PRL" == Perl6 RFC Librarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: PRL -r freadable() PRL -w fwriteable() PRL -x fexecable() PRL -o fowned() PRL -R Freadable() PRL -W Fwriteable() PRL -X

Re: RFC 290 (v2) Better english names for -X

2000-09-27 Thread Uri Guttman
"AT" == Adam Turoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: AT I can't think of any builtins that use _, but it's going to be AT exposed by use english, so perhaps that qualifies it. I'm AT on the fence though. If it's going to be *_writeable, is_writable() AT looks better. It is tom's original

Re: RFC 290 (v2) Better english names for -X

2000-09-27 Thread Nathan Wiger
Adam Turoff wrote: PRL -r freadable() PRL -w fwriteable() PRL -x fexecable() PRL -o fowned() PRL -R Freadable() PRL -W Fwriteable() PRL -X Fexecable() PRL -O Fowned() this looks decent to me. I reserve the right to