Re: testing state of filehandle

"Michael C. Davis" wrote: > At 07:22 PM 2/11/04 -, Rob Dixon wrote: > >Please guys, not in an existing thread. > > Not sure I undestand, looks like a new thread ... ? > Nope. You OP on this subject was sent as a response to Rob's post "Re: Array containment", with references to a couple othe

Re: testing state of filehandle

"Michael C. Davis" wrote: > > Hi all, Hello, > Here's a simple question I should probably already know the answer to but I > don't and the documentation thus far has not been useful. How can I tell > if a given filehandle is open? perldoc -f fileno fileno FILEHANDLE Retu

Re: testing state of filehandle

>That's fine, but the Usenet (NNTP) protocol keeps track of the >tree structure of posts and responses. Most News client software >shows that structure, and both Daniel and I can see your original >post as the tail end of a thread of thirty or so postings. Woops, sorry! Thx for making the distinc

Re: testing state of filehandle

Michael C. Davis wrote: > > At 07:30 PM 2/11/04 -, Rob Dixon wrote: > > > >You built your OP by replying to 'Array containment'. > > > > True, but I'm looking at my original post and I don't see even a single > reference to 'Array containment'. The subject shows to me as 'testing > state of fi

Re: testing state of filehandle

At 07:30 PM 2/11/04 -, Rob Dixon wrote: > >You built your OP by replying to 'Array containment'. > True, but I'm looking at my original post and I don't see even a single reference to 'Array containment'. The subject shows to me as 'testing state of filehandle'. I guess my mailer retained a

Re: testing state of filehandle

--As off Wednesday, February 11, 2004 1:25 PM -0600, Michael C. Davis is alleged to have said: At 07:22 PM 2/11/04 -, Rob Dixon wrote: Please guys, not in an existing thread. Not sure I undestand, looks like a new thread ... ? --As for the rest, it is mine. Erm, no. Not to those of us with

Re: testing state of filehandle

Michael C. Davis wrote: > > At 07:22 PM 2/11/04 -, Rob Dixon wrote: > >Please guys, not in an existing thread. > > Not sure I undestand, looks like a new thread ... ? You built your OP by replying to 'Array containment'. Threads in perl.beginners can get very long: it's best to keep them pure

Re: testing state of filehandle

At 07:22 PM 2/11/04 -, Rob Dixon wrote: >Please guys, not in an existing thread. Not sure I undestand, looks like a new thread ... ? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: testing state of filehandle

At 11:18 AM 2/11/04 -0800, drieux wrote: > perldoc IO::Handle Thank you. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: testing state of filehandle

Michael C. Davis wrote: > [stuff] Please guys, not in an existing thread. Thx Rob -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: testing state of filehandle

On Feb 11, 2004, at 11:13 AM, Michael C. Davis wrote: [..] This suggests doing it in an eval (so the error message gets trapped) and testing the result, but that seems like a complicated solution for a simple problem. Can anyone suggest a better way? Thanks very much in advance. have you look