Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2014
* 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.
--
rjbs
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next