On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 03:48:33AM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >>>>> "PRL" == Perl6 RFC Librarian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> PRL> -r freadable()
> PRL> -w fwriteable()
> PRL> -x fexecable()
> PRL> -o fowned()
>
> PRL> -R Freadable()
> PRL> -W Fwriteable()
> PRL> -X Fexecable()
> PRL> -O Fowned()
>
> this looks decent to me.
Well, it leaves readable for AIO callbacks, so of course you're going
to say that. :-)
I reserve the right to switch to readable/writeable iff the socket/exists
issue has a resolution. Thoughts anyone?
> maybe make the prefix f_ to make it a little
> more readable (overriding that word again! :)?
I can't think of any builtins that use _, but it's going to be
exposed by use english, so perhaps that qualifies it. I'm
on the fence though. If it's going to be *_writeable, is_writable()
looks better. It is tom's original proposal, after all.
> also f/Fexecable() looks very odd.
Patches welcome for f/F.
> is that your choice or were your right
> and left hands fighting again? executable is probably the better term
> and who cares about 2 chars more if you are using this.
No, I chose execable intentionally. Probably change it to executable
in v3 anyway.
Z.
