>> Thats just because IO::Socket is done wrong >Maybe we should address this? If we're keeping syscalls just because a >possible replacement module is just written wrong, we should fix this. Why would we ever remove a syscall!?!? --tom
- Re: RFC: Modify open() and opendir() to r... Peter Scott
- Re: RFC: Modify open() and opendir() to r... Johan Vromans
- Re: RFC: Modify open() and opendir() to r... Steve Simmons
- try/catch (Was: Re: RFC: Modify open() an... Johan Vromans
- Re: try/catch (Was: Re: RFC: Modify open(... Hildo Biersma
- Re: try/catch (Was: Re: RFC: Modify open(... Johan Vromans
- Re: try/catch (Was: Re: RFC: Modify open(... Graham Barr
- Re: try/catch (Was: Re: RFC: Modify open(... Tom Christiansen
- Re: try/catch (Was: Re: RFC: Modify open(... Graham Barr
- Re: try/catch (Was: Re: RFC: Modify open(... Nathan Wiger
- Re: try/catch (Was: Re: RFC: Modify open(... Tom Christiansen
- Re: try/catch (Was: Re: RFC: Modify open(... Nathan Wiger
- Re: try/catch (Was: Re: RFC: Modify open(... Tom Christiansen
- Re: try/catch (Was: Re: RFC: Modify open(... Nathan Torkington
- Re: try/catch (Was: Re: RFC: Modify open(... Tom Christiansen
- Re: try/catch (Was: Re: RFC: Modify open(... Peter Scott
- Re: try/catch (Was: Re: RFC: Modify open(... Steve Simmons
- Re: RFC: Modify open() and opendir() to r... Jonathan Scott Duff
- Re: RFC: Modify open() and opendir() to return handles Nathan Wiger
- Re: RFC: Modify open() and opendir() to return ha... Tim Jenness
- Re: RFC: Modify open() and opendir() to retur... Nathan Wiger