* Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com> [2013-02-17 02:35]: > See what I mean? Short, simple; no fancy stuff. Just the facts, ma'am. ++ Excellent reframing. * Konovalov, Vadim <vadim.konovalov@alcatel-lucent.com> [2013-02-17 07:10]: > * no more IO Layers section, fortunately. Is this really a problem? Encodings are mentioned throughout, though no formal explanation of the mechanism is given. But that seems like a feature to me here. The only other thing I can think of is that it seems necessary to mention :crlf somewhere. Even so I see no necessity for a formal introduction to layers in order to mention it, though. * Karen Etheridge <perl@froods.org> [2013-02-17 03:45]: > * Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com> [2013-02-17 02:35]: > > Because perlopentut is more ETC than TUT, I suggest that the > > original perlopentut be renamed to perlopenetc --and something else > > be written from scratch to take its place. > > Why not simply 'perlopen'? There's ample precedence for 'perlfootut', > 'perlfoo' documents. > > perldoc -f open should be much shorter and simply summarize the > various arguments, and reference the other two, longer, documents. My thoughts exactly. Although I have to say in the case of perlre it has taken somewhat bewildering proportions: perlre perlretut perlreref perlrequick perlrebackslash perlrecharclass perlreapi perlreguts * Tom Christiansen <tchrist@perl.com> [2013-02-17 02:35]: > I'm still undecided about sysopen: should it stay or should it go? If the old perlopentut is renamed perlopen and the perlfunc/open overview gets shortened, then I’d say the sysopen section in your proposed document should go away. A quick “see also” in perlfunc/open as a reminder for people who were looking for sysopen should be enough to jog the memory of those who forgot without clogging the brains of those who haven’t yet; perlopen and perldoc/sysopen can be left to expound on the details. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>Thread Previous | Thread Next