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
Larry Wall wrote:
I suppose another approach is simply to declare that dot is always a
metacharacter in double quotes, and you have to use \. for a literal
dot, just as in regexen. That approach would let us interpolate
things like .foo without a variable on the left. That could cause
a great dea
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 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
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
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
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, Ph. Marek wrote:
> Please take my words as my understanding, ie. with no connection to
> mathmatics or number theory or whatever. I'll just say what I believe is
> practical.
As a side note, being what one would probably call a mathematically
oriented person, it is very nat
On Wednesday 14 July 2004 12:58 pm, Brent 'Dax' Royal-Gordon wrote:
> Andrew Rodland wrote:
> > So if we have @x = [1, 3, 5, 6 .. 9, 10 .. Inf, 42];
>
> ...
>
> > 42 is just one number, so questions of indexing
> > it are moot, but its "distance" from the left is Inf. So, there's no way
> > to acce
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
--- 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 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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
