Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 2001
On Friday 31 August 2001 07:38 pm, Michael G Schwern wrote: > Here it is. A complete, documented C<local chdir($dir)> based on > crab's code patch. > > I plan to do similar things to single-arg select() and umask(). > > Scream now or forever hold your peace. Are those the only two options? I'm still not clear why you specifically want to introduce new grammar to implement this, as opposed to, say, the tied example provided earlier. What are the advantages of having 'local' work with chdir(), compared to the disadvantages of having variable scope declarators that are no longer limited to variables, but now work with functions? (Only, of course, not all functions, just a select few function. And not all scope declarators, just 'local'. [1]) It seems, if you wanted to strive for consistency (which you are usually a champion of), you'd implement this by fixing the original inconsistency - having a description of a program's system state (in this case, the current working directory, although, as you mention, the umask would also be a good candidate) implemented by a magic global, instead of a function. (Such as uid, gid, program name, etc.) [2] Of course, we're a little short on punctuation characters, and $/, besides being taken, would be considered too Unix-centric for some folks. You could do $CWD, or some such, which is exactly what Abigail's solution provided (save a name change and the necessity to 'use'). [1] Of course, 'my' wouldn't make sense, and many of the globals can't be lexically scoped, either. [2] And given [1], it would make it that much more consistent with the other program state variables. -- Bryan C. Warnock bwarnock@capita.comThread Previous | Thread Next