Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"JSD" == Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'll revise the RFC to add 'readable()', 'writable()', and such
synonyms for -r and -w that are more like 'use english' and less like
'use English'.
i have a minor problem with the
On 27 Sep 2000 09:16:10 +0300, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
Another option is to stuff the long names into some namespace, and
export them upon request (or maybe not export them, upon request).
Can you say "method"?
--
Bart.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 08:50:28AM +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On 27 Sep 2000 09:16:10 +0300, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
Another option is to stuff the long names into some namespace, and
export them upon request (or maybe not export them, upon request).
Can you say "method"?
Doesn't work on
The -wd syntax (writeable directory) is nicer than file($file, "wd").
But anyway, there's hardly anything wrong with -w -d. Don't
understand
the complaint.
One thing I would really like to see is better security support. Look
at the Camel-III's security chapter, File::Temp, and the is_safe
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 12:34:00AM -0400, Adam Turoff wrote:
Making '@permissions = -rwx $filename;' work is an interesting new
suggestion.
Yep.
Of course, I should say that I've been hanging out with some
snake-hearders recently.
Hey, we could learn a thing or two from some snake
"JSD" == Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'll revise the RFC to add 'readable()', 'writable()', and such
synonyms for -r and -w that are more like 'use english' and less like
'use English'.
i have a minor problem with the names readable and writeable. i am
currently
"John L. Allen" wrote:
The use of a caret was to prevent decimation of the user's namespace,
perl -e 'print -^rwx $_'
syntax error at -e line 1, near "-^"
Execution of -e aborted due to compilation errors.
The only problem I have with a caret is that to me the
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 02:13:41PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
and if the file test names are only loaded via a pragma it should be
ok. it is not clear to me that you want that.
It's not clear that I want that either.
This is probably a plea for a subset of 'use english;', possibly
'use
Adam Turoff wrote:
That's a stone's throw awaty from:
import english
from english import filetest
result = filetest.readable("/dev/null")
I think the common prefix idea is a nonstarter. There must be a way
to coming up with sensible names for all of -X that
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
I think perhaps that Uri was suggesting more a common letter prefix,
such as:
freadable($file);
fwritable($file);
fexecutable($file);
Than a piece of bastardized Pythonesque syntax. ;-)
Was that what the foo.bar("baz") syntax was? I
"AT" == Adam Turoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
AT On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 02:13:41PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
AT But I wouldn't want that pragma to override any other aspect of the
AT core library, such as async I/O.
agreed. but we can reconcile the name spaces then. or let larry do
"NW" == Nathan Wiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
NW I think perhaps that Uri was suggesting more a common letter prefix,
NW such as:
NW freadable($file);
NW fwritable($file);
NW fexecutable($file);
NW Than a piece of bastardized Pythonesque syntax. ;-)
basically correct. even
Uri Guttman wrote:
not the best. would that be confused with a sub readable and a leading
unary negation? in fact how does perl parse -r now vs - r()?
Yes it would, here's how Perl parses these right now:
perl -w -e '
sub r { local $\; print "r(@_) : "; }
$\ = "\n";
print "-r" if -r
File tests (-r/-w/-x/...) made sense when Perl's shellness was an
attribute. Most new Perl programmers are not coming from a shell
programming background, and the -X syntax is opaque and bizarre.
It should be removed.
Perl programmers happy with the -X syntax will need to get used to the
On 25 Sep 2000, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
=head1 TITLE
Remove -X
The prefered mechanism for file tests should be more legible, using
terms like 'readable(FOO)' and 'writeable(FOO)' instead of the
=head1 MIGRATION ISSUES
Perl programmers happy with the -X syntax will need to get
Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote:
=head1 ABSTRACT
File tests (-r/-w/-x/...) made sense when Perl's shellness was an
attribute. Most new Perl programmers are not coming from a shell
programming background, and the -X syntax is opaque and bizarre.
It should be removed.
On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 23:05:45 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
Perl programmers happy with the -X syntax will need to get used to the
lengthier replacement.
Blech. I certainly think that long functions are fine and dandy, but I'd
loathe the day that I'd have to give up my -X stuff. I *love* it. I'm
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Clayton Scott wrote:
It:
+ stacks multiple tests quite cleanly without excess verbiage
(if (-e -T -s -x){...} gets a little tedious especially
if you don't use $_)
+ introduces only 1 new keyword ("file" seems bad, but maybe not)
+ does not break the
I'd even go so far as to say that the current -X syntax should be
_extended_, to allow for multiple tests at once, maybe by way of a
leading caret (mnemonic "all"):
-^rwx; # $_ is readable, writable and executable
($size, $mod, $acc, $ichange) = -^sMAC;
In fact, you
"John L. Allen" wrote:
The use of a caret was to prevent decimation of the user's namespace,
vis:
perl -e 'print -rwx $_'
Can't call method "rwx" on an undefined value at -e line 1.
Yeah, but read the error - Perl's parsing that as:
[nwiger@matrix:~]$ perl -MO=Deparse -e
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Nathan Wiger wrote:
perl -e 'print -rwx $_'
Can't call method "rwx" on an undefined value at -e line 1.
Yeah, but read the error - Perl's parsing that as:
[nwiger@matrix:~]$ perl -MO=Deparse -e 'print -rwx $_';
print -$_-rwx;
-e syntax OK
Ok,
"John L. Allen" wrote:
Ok, so that's pathological, but this isn't
perl -e 'print -rwx($_)'
Undefined subroutine main::rwx called at -e line 1.
Well, it is still a little weird. You're still negating a subroutine
call. And remember, if you have a sub called "r" this doesn't
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:22:46 -0400, Clayton Scott wrote:
It:
+ stacks multiple tests quite cleanly without excess verbiage
(if (-e -T -s -x){...} gets a little tedious especially
if you don't use $_)
Perhaps you want is to use $_. A "with" statement, or is it an
expression, sounds
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Remove -X
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Adam Turoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 24 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 290
Version: 1
Status: Developing
=head1 ABSTRACT
File tests
24 matches
Mail list logo
