Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2011
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:01:57PM +0100, Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> ---
> ext/POSIX/lib/POSIX.pm | 437 +++++++++++------------------------------------
> ext/POSIX/lib/POSIX.pod | 7 -
> ext/POSIX/t/posix.t | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 342 deletions(-)
I rather like the code culling this achieves. I've (mostly) applied it on
the branch smoke-me/POSIX, along with commits that add some tests for the
various exception messages.
> + clearerr => 'IO::Handle->clearerr',
> + fclose => 'IO::Handle->close',
> + fdopen => 'IO::Handle->new_from_fd',
> + feof => 'IO::Handle->eof',
> + ferror => 'IO::Handle->error',
> + fflush => 'IO::Handle->flush',
> + fgetc => 'IO::Handle->getc',
> + fgetpos => 'IO::Seekable->getpos',
> + fgets => 'IO::Handle->gets',
> + fileno => 'IO::Handle->fileno',
> + fopen => 'IO::File->open',
I specifically didn't apply the changes such as the above, because I'm not
yet convinced that error messages such as
Use method IO::Handle->close() instead at -e line 1
are actually good enough. It's not a class method taking zero parameters.
I agree that the current message:
Use method IO::Handle::close() instead at -e line 1
is also not good enough, but to my (C infested) mind that *can* be read both
as "function taking zero parameters" and "name of a subroutine, parameters
unknown", and my (Perl infested) mind knows that methods are just subroutines.
Maybe the error message should be:
Use method close() on an IO::Handle object instead at -e line 1
Whatever is decided, your refactoring makes it much easier to change it.
Thanks.
Nicholas Clark
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next