Gaal Yahas skribis 2005-05-02 22:25 (+0300): > open 'ls', '|-'; # or even > open 'ls', :pipe => 'from'
I dislike the hard-to-tell-apart symbols '<' and '>' for modes. 'r' and 'w' are much easier, and get rid of the awful left/right "mnemonic" that fails to make sense to GUI users. Spelling out 'write' and 'pipe' is even better, but sucks for oneliners and quick hacks. I already suggested a syntax like '+$write|w' for having multiple ways to say the same thing. I don't like an explicit :mode. Let Perl figure that out based on passed named arguments. But, if we're keeping these forms, then I think we should break tradition for the pipe. In Perl, we have called pipes '==>' and '<==', and I wonder why it would be much different for open. It also frees us from '|-' and '-|'. It took years before I knew which one to use without using the dictionary. Just use '==>' and '<=='. OTOH - people might think the '<' and '>' are also related to their operators. I see this as another good reason to not use \W symbols at all. > This pipe as it is can automatically do open2/3 if both :from and :to > are given. I don't know if this is a good thing. I think it's a good thing. It won't remove the traps, but it will make using bidirectional pipes much easier - an operator that can be done without the manual. > One suggestion for the 'auto' encoding was to honor a BOM if it is > present but default to ASCII otherwise. Or should we UTF-8 otherwise? > Or what's in the environment...? Or guess it, -T alike. Browsers do a great (but of course not perfect) job at guessing. I want Perl to have such dwimmery too. > And what about IO layers? :) I can imagine a similarity to sub wrapping: $fh.wrap(Class) Juerd -- http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
