> [ysth - Sat Nov 27 19:23:58 2004]: > > On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 11:20:28AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 10:55:39AM -0600, Andy Lester wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 03:36:48PM -0000, Steve Peters via RT > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > +Some operating systems may allow a C<IO::File::new> or > C<IO::File::open> > > > > +to be performed on a directory without errors. This behavior > is not > > > > +portable and not suggested for use. Instead, C<opendir> and > C<readdir> or > > > > +C<DirHandle> suggested instead. > > > > > > Let's ditch the passive voice and be more definitive. > > > > > > Some operatings systems may perform a C<IO::File::new> or > > > C<IO::File::open> without errors. This behavior returns raw > information > > > about the directory, and is not portable. Instead, use C<opendir> > and > > > C<readdir> or the C<DirHandle> module. > > > > > > Thanks for digging this up again. > > > > > > xoa > > > > > > > Better still, let's mention directories earlier... > > > > Some operatings systems may perform a C<IO::File::new> or > > C<IO::File::open> on directories without errors. This behavior > returns raw > > information about the directory, and is not portable. Instead, use > > C<opendir> and C<readdir> or the C<DirHandle> module. > > But that's not correct; I thought some allowed opening directories but > always return eof. The vague "not portable" is much better than > making promises about what will be returned if the open succeeds. And > I'd keep it in the family by recommending IO::Dir rather than > DirHandle. (DirHandle doesn't provides seek and tell; IO::Dir does, > as well as the weird tie interface that I can't imagine ever using.) >
OK, the passive voice has ben removed, vague results restored, and IO::Dir suggested instead. An updated patch is attached.
IO.diff
Description: Binary data
