>>>>> "AT" == Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
AT> Maybe it'll be easier to rename the callbacks? They're common
AT> names with easily overloaded meanings, and should be reserved
AT> for the most common usage.
well, that is debatable. i rarely seem to use -X operators as i just
check for the failure of open in most cases. as for my callback names, i
had them first. :)
and if the file test names are only loaded via a pragma it should be
ok. it is not clear to me that you want that. also i think a common
prefix idea is still valid as it will make it more apparent that these
are from the file test family. i have not seen an attempt to name all of
the -X ops yet. i think it will be obvious that a prefix would be good
to make them all have a similar style. and what about the -r/-r name
space? please address those issues and later we can fight over who owns
the name readable! :)
uri
--
Uri Guttman --------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------- http://www.sysarch.com
SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting
The Perl Books Page ----------- http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books
The Best Search Engine on the Net ---------- http://www.northernlight.com
