Re: RFC 140 (v1) One Should Not Get Away With Ignoring System Call Errors

2000-08-24 Thread Jarkko Hietaniemi
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 02:09:15PM -0400, Chaim Frenkel wrote: > >>>>> "JH" == Jarkko Hietaniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > JH> "The first operation done on the return value of open() shall be defined() > JH> or you shall regret your

Re: RFC 140 (v1) One Should Not Get Away With Ignoring System Call Errors

2000-08-23 Thread Jarkko Hietaniemi
> I believe Dan said that he wanted to make objects a lot faster in P6. I > don't think we should be precluded from requesting Things That Make Sense > (tm) just because the current implementation is sub-optimal in performance > if nothing inherently prevents a better implementation. I don't

Re: RFC 140 (v1) One Should Not Get Away With Ignoring System Call Errors

2000-08-23 Thread Jarkko Hietaniemi
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 08:17:18AM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote: > >"The first operation done on the return value of open() shall be defined() > >or you shall regret your pitiful existence."? (a flag on the scalar coming > >from open that makes any other op than defined() to die and defined() cle

Re: RFC 140 (v1) One Should Not Get Away With Ignoring System Call Errors

2000-08-23 Thread Jarkko Hietaniemi
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 11:07:44PM -0700, Peter Scott wrote: > At 04:32 AM 8/23/00 +, Perl6 RFC Librarian wrote: > >One Should Not Get Away With Ignoring System Call Errors > > Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I think this should be perl6-language-errors I scoured the -errors but all I