Re: RFC 290 (v2) Better english names for -X
Adam Turoff wrote: > > > 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. > > I reserve the right to switch to readable/writeable iff the socket/exists > issue has a resolution. Thoughts anyone? I actually like the above because of the common prefix. It makes it quite clear these are file tests. > > 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 _ Indeed, no builtins include _. In fact, the warning Unquoted string "stuff" may clash with future reserved word is only raised if: You used a bareword that might someday be claimed as a reserved word. It's best to put such a word in quotes, or capitalize it somehow, or insert an underbar into it. > > also f/Fexecable() looks very odd. > > Patches welcome for f/F. Yeah, mixed case gives me the willies! Bigtime. Plus, see above. Here's some: frealreadable() frealwriteable() frealexecable() frealowned I was going to list other alternatives, but I think those work just fine, personally. Long is not necessarily bad; this is "use english" after all. -Nate
Re: RFC 290 (v2) Better english names for -X
> "AT" == Adam Turoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: AT> I can't think of any builtins that use _, but it's going to be AT> exposed by use english, so perhaps that qualifies it. I'm AT> on the fence though. If it's going to be *_writeable, is_writable() AT> looks better. It is tom's original proposal, after all. fine with me. but i like f_ (or plain f) better as is_ doesn't work well with access/modified etc. using f/F is more consistant and marks them as file tests. AT> Patches welcome for f/F. that was about the execable part, not the f/F AT> No, I chose execable intentionally. Probably change it to executable AT> in v3 anyway. who gave you permission to invent new words? :) 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
Re: RFC 290 (v2) Better english names for -X
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.
Re: RFC 290 (v2) Better english names for -X
> "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() PRL> -e fexists() PRL> -z fzero() PRL> -s fsize() PRL> -f ffile() PRL> -d fdir() PRL> -l flink() PRL> -p fpipe() PRL> -S fsocket() PRL> -b fblock() PRL> -c fchar() PRL> -t ftty() PRL> -u fsetuid() PRL> -g fsetgid() PRL> -k fsticky() PRL> -T ftext() PRL> -B fbinary() PRL> -M fage() PRL> -A faccessed() PRL> -C fchanged() this looks decent to me. maybe make the prefix f_ to make it a little more readable (overriding that word again! :)? also f/Fexecable() looks very odd. 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. 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
