Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: > > It looks as though you have changed the behaviour of eof(), though I > > have not tried building it yet. > > Maybe, but I don't see where? OK, I think I misread the code. I guess it's the double negative of 'nomagicopen' being set to FALSE that confused me. > By the way, I just pushed a test > involving eof and <<>> as ad77c200c8a4ed. I don't see eof() in that commit, though the test you added is a good one. > eof() (with empty parentheses) > still continues to open the next file the old way. > > > Would it not be better to flag in GvEGVx(PL_argvgv) to remember which > > of <>/<<>> was last used? There is plenty of room in GvFLAGS. > > What would that solve? The point is that <> and <<>> differ on how they > open the next upcoming file. This is not a property of ARGV. If I understand correctly, eof() tries opening the next file at an individual file's EOF. I thought you might consider having it reuse the last <> or <<>>, to avoid giving a false sense of security to peo- ple who do: while (<<>>) { ... blah_blah_blah() if eof(); } where the eof() might to a 2-arg open. Then again, I haven't tested any of this (I don't have time right now), so I may be completely wrong. ..Thread Previous | Thread Next