Juerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not a problem, assuming that these are named arguments as in:
>
> open :r, $file;
> open :w, $file;
> open :rw, $file;
> open :r :w, $file; # Hmm...
I like this approach. :a seems a probable replacement for ">>$file"
then; one imagines that :a
Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1 .. ()
> ^:by(3)
>
> But we'd have to pay really close attention to how indenting is
> done. Maybe we should just pass this suggestion on to Guido... :-)
Yes, please leave column-alignment tricks to Python. I don't even
like the fact that ind
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> my $fh = open ">$filename" :excl;
Can we please not name it with a random character generator? How
about something that communicates what it does in some fashion, at
least well enough to function as a mnemonic?
my $fh = open $filename :rw :norepla
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon writes:
> My personal preference is for:
>
> $in=open :r "|/usr/bin/foo";
>
> The pipe would be legal on either side of the string. This would
> still allow the often-useful "type a pipe command at a prompt for a
> file",
And it still allows for all those securit
Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon skribis 2004-07-15 13:04 (-0700):
> $in=open :r "|/usr/bin/foo";
> $out=open :w "|/usr/bin/foo";
> $both=open :rw "|/usr/bin/foo";
No, thank you. Please let us not repeat the mistake of putting mode and filename/path
in one argument.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp/e
Greg Boug wrote:
I have always felt that keeping it the same as shell scripting was a handy
thing, especially when I have been teaching it to others. It also makes
the ol' perl5
open FH, "|/usr/bin/foo";
make a lot more sense. Using something like
open "p", "/usr/bin/foo";
just wo
--- Smylers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using C<:w> and C<:r> would at least match what C<:w> and C<:r> do in
> 'Vi' ...
That seems intuitive:
my $fh = open 'foo.txt', :w;
$fh.say "Hello, world!";
$fh = open 'foo.txt', :e;# Ha, ha, just kidding!
$fh.say <<<-EOF
If wifey shuns
Greg Boug writes:
> I have always felt that keeping ['>' and '<'] the same as shell
> scripting was a handy thing, ...
Using C<:w> and C<:r> would at least match what C<:w> and C<:r> do in
'Vi' ...
Smylers
Greg Boug skribis 2004-07-15 20:01 (+1000):
> open FH, "|/usr/bin/foo";
I'd love to be rid of -| and |-. I always have to RTFM to know which
one is which.
open :r :p, '/usr/bin/foo'; # Or :read :pipe
open :rp, '/usr/bin/foo';# IIRC, rules also let you combine
H.Merijn Brand skribis 2004-07-15 11:57 (+0200):
> 1. They do not ambiguate with files named 'r', or 'w'
Not a problem, assuming that these are named arguments as in:
open :r, $file;
open :w, $file;
open :rw, $file;
open :r :w, $file; # Hmm...
> 2. They don't have to be translat
On Thu 15 Jul 2004 11:42, Michele Dondi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Juerd wrote:
>
> > open '<', $foo;
> > open '>', $foo;
> >
> > is much harder to read than
> >
> > open 'r', $foo;
> > open 'w', $foo;
>
> Are you sure?!? I would tend to disagree...
S
On Thursday 15 July 2004 19:42, Michele Dondi wrote:
> > open '<', $foo;
> > open '>', $foo;
> >
> > is much harder to read than
> >
> > open 'r', $foo;
> > open 'w', $foo;
> Are you sure?!? I would tend to disagree... not that MHO is particularly
> important, I guess, but just to s
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Juerd wrote:
> open '<', $foo;
> open '>', $foo;
>
> is much harder to read than
>
> open 'r', $foo;
> open 'w', $foo;
Are you sure?!? I would tend to disagree... not that MHO is particularly
important, I guess, but just to stress the fact that it is by
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:44:11PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
: On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 07:24:55AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: > : But in Perl 6, you don't have to specify things like that through the
: > : mode string: you can specify them through named
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 07:24:55AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
> : But in Perl 6, you don't have to specify things like that through the
> : mode string: you can specify them through named parameters:
> :
> : my $fh = open ">$filename" :excl;
>
> While tha
Larry Wall skribis 2004-07-13 14:04 (-0700):
> The combined form is definitely problematic in various ways, and we haven't
> really redesigned open yet, since we haven't got to A29 yet. :-)
Well, open being much like IO::All::io would really make me happy.
That is:
my $fh = open 'foo.txt';
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:25:52PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
: Luke Palmer skribis 2004-07-13 7:24 (-0600):
: > But in Perl 6, you don't have to specify things like that through the
: > mode string: you can specify them through named parameters:
: > my $fh = open ">$filename" :excl;
:
: I was hopin
Luke Palmer skribis 2004-07-13 7:24 (-0600):
> But in Perl 6, you don't have to specify things like that through the
> mode string: you can specify them through named parameters:
> my $fh = open ">$filename" :excl;
I was hoping we could finally get rid of mode characters, and especially
combi
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:41:32AM -0700, Austin Hastings wrote:
: --- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > While that probably works, I think better style would be to use a
: > comma:
: >
: > my $fh = open ">$filename", :excl;
: >
: > That explicitly passes :excl to open as a term in a
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While that probably works, I think better style would be to use a
> comma:
>
> my $fh = open ">$filename", :excl;
>
> That explicitly passes :excl to open as a term in a list rather
> than relying on the magical properties of :foo to find the preced
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 07:24:55AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote:
: But in Perl 6, you don't have to specify things like that through the
: mode string: you can specify them through named parameters:
:
: my $fh = open ">$filename" :excl;
While that probably works, I think better style would be to
Michele Dondi writes:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Michele Dondi wrote:
>
> > I rather have a much "bigger" wish for an open-like operator that to be
>
>
> Of course that should be "function".
>
> > I'm thinking of an operator that returns
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> > I rather have a much "bigger" wish for an open-like operator that to be
> > fair I would like to see *also* in Perl5: nothing that one can do in well
> > more than one way in any case (also including creating a module that will
^^
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:41:54PM +0200, Michele Dondi wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I have a wish for Perl 6. I would like if the open-funktion
> > opens only a file if it doesn't exist.
> > Of course, I can first test if the file exist.
>
> I rather have a much
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Michele Dondi wrote:
> I rather have a much "bigger" wish for an open-like operator that to be
Of course that should be "function".
> I'm thinking of an operator that returns a "magical" FH working like the
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have a wish for Perl 6. I would like if the open-funktion
> opens only a file if it doesn't exist.
> Of course, I can first test if the file exist.
I rather have a much "bigger" wish for an open-like operator that to be
fair I would like to see
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Hello,
>
> I have a wish for Perl 6. I would like if the open-funktion
> opens only a file if it doesn't exist.
> Of course, I can first test if the file exist.
>
> if (-e $filename)
> { print "file already exists!"; }
> else
> { open (FH, ">$filename") }
Hello,
I have a wish for Perl 6. I would like if the open-funktion
opens only a file if it doesn't exist.
Of course, I can first test if the file exist.
if (-e $filename)
{ print "file already exists!"; }
else
{ open (FH, ">$filename") }
My suggestion is to have a character for t
28 matches
Mail list logo
