Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from November 2000
Re: PerlIO - what next ?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Nick Ing-Simmons
Date:
November 9, 2000 04:52
Subject:
Re: PerlIO - what next ?
Message ID:
200011091251.MAA14218@mikado.tiuk.ti.com
Barries <barries@slaysys.com> writes:
>> That almost looks cool, if unworkable. But it does give me the idea
>> that we could have
>>
>> open PIPE, "-|", ['cat', '-n', 'file']
>
>This is very close to what IPC::Run does, and I've found it to be very
>workable. A few examples adapted from current code, showing that passing the
>command line as an ARRAY ref frees you up to do all sorts of nifty
>shell-like things using plain scalars.
While I only have myself to blame for suggesting changing the open
arguments - I don't want to get involved in non-layer related
issues at this point.
>
>Now if only I could close all filehandles, I could make subprocesses a little
>more isolated from the parent and more reliably daemonizable :).
When built with -Duseperlio it would be trivial to have a "close all"
there already has to be one as an "atexit" routine to flush the
buffers. To build on the way PerlIO_flush(NULL) does flush all
PerlIO_close(NULL) could so the same - but what should it look like to perl
code (or should we just make perl do the right thing?)
--
Nick Ing-Simmons <nik@tiuk.ti.com>
Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next