Martin D Kealey wrote:
> I wonder if this is becoming the new Perl mantra "use lexically scoped
> pragmata".
Larry said it much more succinctly: all's fair if you predeclare.
--
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
> ..but Perl is more magic than bash :). Seriously, I can see both
> sides of the argument, and I'm leaning towards the $*CWD = chdir idea (as an
> option if people want to use it), but I realise that a lot of people are
> leaning the other way.
Mark J. Reed wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
(If Perl really must have the ability to change the non-virtual "current
working directory", such as because its going to spawn another non-Perl
process, then this should use some separate mechanism to what all of Perl's
o
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Having read all of this thread to date, I'll state a solution which should
> be elegant and which I'm not sure has been stated yet.
I think that's basically what we were suggesting above, except:
> (If Perl really must have the ability to
Having read all of this thread to date, I'll state a solution which should be
elegant and which I'm not sure has been stated yet.
I propose that the concept of "current working directory" in Perl be a
completely internal, virtual concept, and each Perl thread has its own "current
working direc
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> The OS-level chdir() and getcwd() are not thread-safe. The usual
> advice is to ignore them completely in multithreaded programs, in
> favor of absolute paths (or relative paths from a fixed location,
> never calling chdir()). This is part of
The OS-level chdir() and getcwd() are not thread-safe. The usual
advice is to ignore them completely in multithreaded programs, in
favor of absolute paths (or relative paths from a fixed location,
never calling chdir()). This is part of the a reason that Apache2
recommends fastcgi for non-prefork
Ok, here's a fairly significant point posted on IRC.
wayland76: the point of using $*CWD would be (and would *have* to
be, given how context vars work) to give each thread its own working
directory, independent of the process as a whole
Now, given that chdir is an OS concept that a
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
>> It's not that unreasonable.
>
> I disagree, and I think I've explained why, and perhaps we won't get much
> further.
I'm not claiming that it's a good idea for bash to adopt this
behavior, only that it's a reasonable expectation tohave up
2009/8/19 Timothy S. Nelson :
>
> Ok, so suppose we only allowed direct assignment to absolute paths?
>
That would be currently how it works.
--
Carlin
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Jan Ingvoldstad
> wrote:
> > You think it's a bug that PWD="/etc" doesn't change your working
> directory
> > to /etc in bash?
> >
> > Please tell me you're joking.
>
> It's not that unreasonable.
I disagree
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Timothy S.
Nelson wrote:
> Ok, so suppose we only allowed direct assignment to absolute paths?
Is there an echo in here? :)
--
Mark J. Reed
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Carlin Bingham wrote:
2009/8/19 Timothy S. Nelson :
So, if P5 does it for some global (note: global != environment)
variables, then why not do it for some in P6?
Because if (for some reason) I do:
$> = 5; # Which calls setuid(5);
print $>; # 5
Whereas:
$*CWD =
2009/8/19 Timothy S. Nelson :
>
> So, if P5 does it for some global (note: global != environment)
> variables, then why not do it for some in P6?
>
Because if (for some reason) I do:
$> = 5; # Which calls setuid(5);
print $>; # 5
Whereas:
$*CWD = '..'; # which hypothetically calls chdir
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:33 PM, David Green wrote:
Huh. Thank you, I did not know that. It makes "sense" (in that I
understand what's going on now that I see it, and indeed it seems almost
obvious), but I certainly couldn't call it "expected" be
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> You think it's a bug that PWD="/etc" doesn't change your working directory
> to /etc in bash?
>
> Please tell me you're joking.
It's not that unreasonable. Given a variable that magically changes
depending on your working directory, having
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 2:33 PM, David Green wrote:
>
> Huh. Thank you, I did not know that. It makes "sense" (in that I
> understand what's going on now that I see it, and indeed it seems almost
> obvious), but I certainly couldn't call it "expected" because I didn't. And
> I can guarantee I'
On 2009-Aug-18, at 5:48 am, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:02 PM, David Green
wrote:
It doesn't seem that surprising to me, especially after seeing the
docs the first time. Are there environments where you can set a
variable like $*CWD and it doesn't do something like chdi
Er, that "basename" down there should be a "dirname", for those
playing along at home. Memo to self: do not type long screeds on
Blackberry...
On 8/18/09, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> It would be nice if the bikeshed had aluminum siding. Er, I mean, if
> chdir() changed *CWD and vice-versa, though I'
It would be nice if the bikeshed had aluminum siding. Er, I mean, if
chdir() changed *CWD and vice-versa, though I'm not sure offhand how
best to code that in idiomatic P6 to avoid the infinite recursion.
Anyway, at the very least, a readonly *CWD holding a cached idea of
the current dir is good.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:02 PM, David Green wrote:
> On 2009-Aug-18, at 3:12 am, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
>>
>> It may seem cool, but I don't like secondary effects like that. They break
>> the principle of least surprise.
>
> It doesn't seem that surprising to me, especially after seeing the docs t
On 2009-Aug-18, at 4:59 am, Carlin Bingham wrote:
2009/8/18 Timothy S. Nelson :
It's not in the revised spec, but I think that, even though
we've revived chdir, we should still have it so that changing $*CWD
will do a chdir under the hood.
While in the spirit of TIMTOWTDI, having a "
2009/8/18 David Green :
> On 2009-Aug-18, at 3:27 am, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, David Green wrote:
>>>
> or however that would work in P6. It may have problems, but by definition
> they're the same problems as chdir() has. What am I missing?
>
>
chdir is a familar funct
On 2009-Aug-18, at 3:27 am, Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, David Green wrote:
Maybe setting $*CWD just calls chdir() under the hood? Same
implementation, brand new shiny Perl-style interface!
That was my intent, but we had some discussions on IRC about the
whys and wherefores
24 matches
Mail list logo
