On Thu May 31 15:16:07 2012, doy@tozt.net wrote: > On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 06:52:22PM -0700, James E Keenan via RT wrote: > > On Tue Oct 19 17:21:50 2004, tex@off.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If TIOSCTTY isn't a constant sub it is a bareword i.e. a string. > > > > > > > > It is a constant sub. > > > > > > > > > > Err, sorry, no coffee yet. I don't think it's a constant sub, it's > > > set to &PL_sv_undef, which I guess would be an undef scalar. > > > That still doesn't explain why the debugger admits to it not being > > > defined but it still following the branch anyway. > > > > > > Austin > > > > > > > Discussion in this RT petered out nearly eight years ago, and ni-s has > > passed away. Is there anyone familiar with IO::Tty who could review > > this ticket and see whether we have a bug in Perl's defined built-in, a > > bug in that module, or some combination thereof? > > > > Thank you very much. > > Jim Keenan > > The changes in IO::Tty 1.03 look possibly relevant here. > > -doy > They do look relevant, but they don't help with respect to writing a test to reproduce the original problem. The original poster said that on a system which does have TIOCSCTTY -- which I believe my Linux/i386 does -- one can "comment it out or undefine it" (paraphrase). But I don't know how to do that. Thank you very much. Jim Keenan --- via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open https://rt.perl.org:443/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=32032