On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Nicholas Clark <nick@ccl4.org> wrote: > What does this gain? I don't think that it simplifies anything. > > POSIX::SigAction would always be loaded by POSIX::SigRT (because the > latter uses the former) and POSIX::SigRT would always be loaded by POSIX > (because %POSIX::SIGRT is implemented by the methods in POSIX::SigRT) > > It would increase the number calls to stat() and open() to load POSIX, > without (I think) reducing in any way the compile time or runtime resources > needed. It does matter in the sense that currenly «use POSIX::SigAction;» doesn't work. Nor does something like «use parent 'POSIX::SigSet';». In a related note, can anyone explain me what %POSIX::SIGRT is needed for? %SIG seems to handle real time signals just fine. Why does it use *unsafe* signals? Does my second question answer my first? Why it has this strange signal naming convention that differs from what the core ($Config{sig_name}) uses? Why is this convention not documented? Why it doesn't have tests? Has anyone ever used it for anything? LeonThread Previous | Thread Next