* Rafael Garcia-Suarez <rgs@consttype.org> [2014-07-24T11:51:40] > I believe that this was discussed here some years ago, and that this > was suggested by TomC. Anyway, I pushed a patch on rgs/nomagicopen. > The patch is incomplete as it lacks docs and tests. I welcome feedback > on the intent of the feature. I'm still not crazy about the one-off syntax addition, but I think that it's the best we're going to see without setting an unrealistic bar for a new, generic feature. If we ever *do* get <> adverbs, we can call this sugar for one or blah blah blah it doesn't matter that much right now. :-) While my heart wants -n to be safe, my conscience tells me that we'll break enough (bizarre, to my mind (except maybe regarding "-")) expectations that it isn't worth doing. Probably we want -P and -N for safe opening. I am gratified to see that <<X>> fails for any X, as you've only made the literal construct <<>> iterate. Awesome. I think we're going to want a better error message, if possible, though, than: ~/code/perl5$ ./perl -e 'while (<<ARGV>>) { print }' 'ls |' Can't find string terminator "ARGV" anywhere before EOF at -e line 1. Something roughly like "safe <<>> operator meaningless on concrete filehandles" — that's not right, but you get the idea. I don't think I have any further thoughts on it. -- rjbsThread Previous | Thread Next