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
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
"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
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
