Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from September 2000
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:48:33AM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote: > >>>>> "PRL" == Perl6 RFC Librarian <perl6-rfc@perl.org> writes: > > PRL> -r freadable() > PRL> -w fwriteable() > PRL> -x fexecable() > PRL> -o fowned() > > PRL> -R Freadable() > PRL> -W Fwriteable() > PRL> -X Fexecable() > PRL> -O Fowned() > > this looks decent to me. Well, it leaves readable for AIO callbacks, so of course you're going to say that. :-) I reserve the right to switch to readable/writeable iff the socket/exists issue has a resolution. Thoughts anyone? > maybe make the prefix f_ to make it a little > more readable (overriding that word again! :)? I can't think of any builtins that use _, but it's going to be exposed by use english, so perhaps that qualifies it. I'm on the fence though. If it's going to be *_writeable, is_writable() looks better. It is tom's original proposal, after all. > also f/Fexecable() looks very odd. Patches welcome for f/F. > is that your choice or were your right > and left hands fighting again? executable is probably the better term > and who cares about 2 chars more if you are using this. No, I chose execable intentionally. Probably change it to executable in v3 anyway. Z.