I wrote up a quick patch to os.pmc to add an ls method. Pass it a
directory name, and it'll return a resizablestringarray with the
contents of the directory. But, I don't know anything about the
windows API and can't test it, etc... I don't think there's been any
decision yet on the interfac
Leo, should I apply it for OS or File, or none?
Cheers
Alberto
Joshua Isom wrote:
I wrote up a quick patch to os.pmc to add an ls method. Pass it a
directory name, and it'll return a resizablestringarray with the
contents of the directory. But, I don't know anything about the windows
API an
Applied as r11511 (wow, a palindrome revision :-))
Thanks.
Alberto
Joshua Isom wrote:
I wrote up a quick patch to os.pmc to add an ls method. Pass it a
directory name, and it'll return a resizablestringarray with the
contents of the directory. But, I don't know anything about the windows
AP
On Feb 12, 2006, at 21:13, Alberto Simões wrote:
Applied as r11511 (wow, a palindrome revision :-))
And reverted in r11512 by ambs. The choosen method name isn't, well,
the best choice, the used OS calls (opendir/readdir/closedir) should
better be exposed as is, and it didn't compile, becau
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 12:23:33AM +0100, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
> On Feb 12, 2006, at 21:13, Alberto Sim?es wrote:
>
> >Applied as r11511 (wow, a palindrome revision :-))
>
> And reverted in r11512 by ambs. The choosen method name isn't, well,
> the best choice, the used OS calls (opendir/re
On Feb 12, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
It would also be 'really nice' have a glob(3) like method that is
implemented as a wrapper around *dir methods so the semantics are
portable.
My outsider opinion is that parrot should focus on exposing basic OS
functions (opendir, readdir, c
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:28:40AM -0600, Chris Dolan wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
>
> >It would also be 'really nice' have a glob(3) like method that is
> >implemented as a wrapper around *dir methods so the semantics are
> >portable.
>
> My outsider opinion is tha
On Feb 13, 2006, at 1:20 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:28:40AM -0600, Chris Dolan wrote:
On Feb 12, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
It would also be 'really nice' have a glob(3) like method that is
implemented as a wrapper around *dir methods so the semantics ar
"Joshua Hoblitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think your slightly confusing OPs and PMCs. Presumably the *dir
functionality would be implemented as OP codes
I thought The Plan was to have all the I/O stuff done with PMCs rather than
ops in the end. There's no real benefit in having ops - the
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:09:45PM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> "Joshua Hoblitt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I think your slightly confusing OPs and PMCs. Presumably the *dir
> >functionality would be implemented as OP codes
> >
> I thought The Plan was to have all the I/O stuff done wit
On Feb 13, 2006, at 6:28 PM, Joshua Hoblitt wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:09:45PM -, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
I agree with Chris on minimising the amount of places we do security
stuff
as far as is sensible. However, I would think that the interface for
doing
sandboxing style stuf
11 matches
Mail list logo