Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from December 2008
> So if we had tied eof() processing and READLINE was
> responsive to context, it could work?
I'm wondering about your mood there, Chip. Not your
fault, but rather English's, the language being a bit
defective on ample, separate, distinguishible forms for
some useful shadings of meaning. Two possibilities
arise for valid sequences of tenses, and I don't know
which to apply here so to suss out your intended meaning:
1. If <past subj> then <conditional>.
2. If <past indic> then <past indic>.
If you meant an exhortation,
(mode=[optative] subjunctive,
"O! If only 'twere so!" or "God grant ..."),
with a consequent necessarily in the conditional mood:
eg1: If only READLINE() were responsive to context,
then lo! it would work fine.
then your exhortation has long been granted.
If, however, you meant a simple statement of fact
(mode=indicative, tense=past, voice=active, completedness
or finitude possibly perfect, but more probably imperfect),
which takes therefore a consequent likewise in the past
indicative, not in any subjunctive or conditional mode:
eg2: If READLINE() was responsive to context in 1994,
then I didn't know about it.
Then I'd have to check *when* it became true. But my
tests show it's fine now.
The eof problem may be different.
Allegedly, per perltie(1), the ->EOF() method can be overridden
on a tied handle. However, I guess you'd need to use the hasargs
part of your frametrace to tell eof from eof(). Maybe.
---tom
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next