[9059] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2678 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri May 22 01:07:48 1998
Date: Thu, 21 May 98 22:02:54 -0700
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Thu, 21 May 1998 Volume: 8 Number: 2678
Today's topics:
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <mstachow@mit.edu>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <mcgrant@mindspring.com>
HELP! Need to make binary exe out of perl script elbirt@my-dejanews.com
Re: Help! setting MODE for mkdir() (Martien Verbruggen)
I can't use any modules in FreeBSD! <msielski@mailexcite.net>
Re: I can't use any modules in FreeBSD! (Michael Fuhr)
Re: I can't use any modules in FreeBSD! <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Int() gives wrong result k_wong@my-dejanews.com
Re: Inter-process file arbitration? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: LABOR CRISIS: Perl SW Guru NEEDED MA Intranet Start <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca>
Re: looking for simple browser - cgi compatible -not ly (Martien Verbruggen)
Re: More double standards out of the FSF <ljz@asfast.com>
No, I didn't. (was Re: Yeah, Stop it! (was Re: Stop Cha <webmaster@fccjmail.fccj.org>
Re: Quiet summary (Ronald J Kimball)
Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software com (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software com <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software communit <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software communit <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: What is wrong with this FileHandle code? <mgregory@asc.sps.mot.com>
Re: What is wrong with this FileHandle code? <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Yeah, Stop it! (was Re: Stop Changing Subject Lines!!) <sowmaster@juicepigs.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 14:29:58 -0400
From: Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <v8w1ztncw9l.fsf@w20-575-73.MIT.EDU>
> Don't be silly. The purpose is to get people to write encumbered
> software. Software that's free of strings attached is anti-FSF.
> RMS shoves his dogma down the throats of those whose idea of freedom
> doesn't include viruses. That goes over like a lead balloon.
The FSF distributes software under various BSD-like licenses,
including some on which it has done a fair amount of development
itself. I guess the FSF is anti-FSF.
RMS has no moral objections to licenses less restrictive than the
GPL. What he objects to are licenses that are significnatly more
restrictive. And he says that the GPL is pragmatically useful for his
particular purposes. If that's "shoving dogma down [people's] throats"
what room is left for free debate?
> Listen closely: the free software is much bigger, and much more important,
> than the FSF. They don't want to hear this, but it's true. The world
> does not revolve around Richard, who strangely wants us all to send
> him money.
Sure it's bigger than them. But they had a very large part in building
the tradition of freely redistributable and modifiable software, and
have produced a lot of good software themselves. If you don't think
it's worthwhile to give them money so they can keep doing that, no one
will make you. But some people disagree, and, e.g. prefer to buy
products in a way that will result in a donation to the FSF.
> The revelation for me I hadn't realized that I had accidentally released a
> virus to the world by letting my writings be poisoned by the FSF licence.
> I am now fixing this immoral disgrace. Crippleware is not what we want,
> especially when it is crippled in a way unobvious to the casual user.
>
> I terribly sorry to have released a virus unknowingly. Never again.
> The GPL has no place in documentation.
Well, good. The GNU project doesn't use the GPL for
documentation. It's about timeyou caught up.
- Maciej Stachowiak
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 14:53:33 -0400
From: tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <u1hiumztpzm.fsf@mary-kay-commandos.MIT.EDU>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> It is imperative that no documentation be placed under the GPL due to its
> insidious viral nature. For example, the Perl documentation is meant to
> be used to take examples from to use in your programs. We want people
> to do this.
And, if you paid attention, you would find that no GNU documentation
is placed under the GPL. It is under a different copyright, which
reads:
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of
this manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice
are preserved on all copies.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this
manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided also that the
section entitled ``GNU Library General Public License'' is included
exactly as in the original, and provided that the entire resulting
derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice
identical to this one.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this manual
into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions,
except that the text of the translation of the section entitled ``GNU
Library General Public License'' must be approved for accuracy by the
Foundation.
It happens that the existing GNU manuals do not contain any
significant code examples that anyone would want to cut and paste into
their own programs; the fragments that are there are so small that I'm
pretty sure copying them would be considered fair use.
In a manual with significant examples, there's nothing wrong with
distributing them under something like the MIT copyright.
However, there is no GNU documentation distributed under the GPL, and
your concerns only apply to manuals that have significant code
samples, for which a simple extension of the license suffices.
In no case is your concern a valid argument for RESTRICTING changes to
the prose explanatory text, which is what your manuals do.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 21:50:25 -0700
From: "Michael C. Grant" <mcgrant@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6k3061$1nt$1@camel21.mindspring.com>
I've got to agree with Tom here. GPL-ed software is a lot _less_ free than
the examples found in the Perl documentation. With the former, you're forced
to adhere to the GPL yourself; with the former, you _can_ adhere to it if
you want to, but you don't _have_ to.
By your very arguments you establish this fact: using GPLed code comes with
restrictions; if you want to use the code, you have to accept the
restrictions: less choice.
I understand GNU's intentions are good here. To an extent, I agree with
them. But let's not fool ourselves by saying that using GPLed code comes
with no cost whatsoever. The GPL is a gilded cage.
Michael
P.S. However, I _also_ agree that Tom seems to have taken a couple of extra
hits of caffeine. Something GPL-like must have bit him _real hard_ lately.
chris+usenet@netmonger.net wrote in message
<6k1cl6$d6g$1@schenectady.netmonger.net>...
>In article <6k0kig$dn2$2@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
>Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
>You have the _choice_ to write your own damn software instead of using
>bits of GPL'd code. Don't you understand that the FSF's purpose for
>existence is to promote free software (yes, with _their_ definition of
>"free" - why would they use someone else's?). To you this "loss of
>artistic rights" is a moral outrage worthy of going apeshit in public.
>To them, the most important thing is for software to be free. The
>whole POINT of the GPL is to let people write free software and know
>that it can never be taken and used in a non-free product. It's been
>around for _how_ long? You've been on the net for _how_ long? And
>you never realized what the GPL said until now?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 03:19:31 GMT
From: elbirt@my-dejanews.com
Subject: HELP! Need to make binary exe out of perl script
Message-Id: <6k2qs2$3gl$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Hello,
I have a perl script I wrote that I need to make an executable binary on the
WIN 95 platform. I would like to convert the script into a C++ file that
performs the same(which I can compile with my c++ compiler), but don't have
a clue how!
Any suggestions? Any help would be appreciated. Please e-mail me at
ben@drpaula.com. Thanks,
Ben
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 02:40:21 GMT
From: mgjv@comdyn.com.au (Martien Verbruggen)
Subject: Re: Help! setting MODE for mkdir()
Message-Id: <6k2oil$fva$4@comdyn.comdyn.com.au>
In article <6k226s$p12$1@camel25.mindspring.com>,
"John Zenyuh" <jzenyuh@mindspring.com> writes:
> I'm trying to create several directories at run-time
> and I would like to establish the following permissions:
>
> drwxrwxr-x dirname
>
> I would appreciate any hints on setting the MODE
> argument for the mkdir() function. Apparently the
> octal sequence 0775 doesn't work like it does for
> the cmd line 'chmod'. Running umask() from the
No, it doesn't. It works like the octal sequence that is passed to
mkdir(2), the system library function. And that is modified by the
umask setting. Perl simply calls that. Follow the mkdir with a
chmod(), and your problems will be solved.
Martien
--
Martien Verbruggen |
Webmaster www.tradingpost.com.au | "In a world without fences,
Commercial Dynamics Pty. Ltd. | who needs Gates?"
NSW, Australia |
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 23:09:30 -0400
From: Matthew Sielski <msielski@mailexcite.net>
Subject: I can't use any modules in FreeBSD!
Message-Id: <3564EC69.D8B7D885@mailexcite.net>
I have used Perl under NT and BSD Unix but have recently been trying it
on a FreeBSD system (release 2.2.5 Nov. '97). On this machine I can run
any Perl code as long as it does not import modules with the "use"
function. If I try to run a program as simple as this:
#!/usr/bin/perl
use diagnostics;
print "testing\n";
I receive this message:
syntax error in file test.pl at line 2, next 2 tokens "use diagnostics"
Execution of test.pl aborted due to compilation errors.
I know that the diagnostics.pm file is in my path. The error will be
returned with any module I try to use. Removing line 2 from the program
causes it to run fine. This leads me to believe that it is some system
setting that I am unaware of. I cannot figure this one out. Any help
would greatly be appreciated.
Thanks,
Matt
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 03:41:51 GMT
From: mfuhr@dimensional.com (Michael Fuhr)
Subject: Re: I can't use any modules in FreeBSD!
Message-Id: <6k2s5s$o0o@flatland.dimensional.com>
Matthew Sielski <msielski@mailexcite.net> writes:
> I have used Perl under NT and BSD Unix but have recently been trying it
> on a FreeBSD system (release 2.2.5 Nov. '97). On this machine I can run
> any Perl code as long as it does not import modules with the "use"
> function. If I try to run a program as simple as this:
>
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> use diagnostics;
> print "testing\n";
/usr/bin/perl is Perl 4 on most FreeBSD systems -- run "perl -v" to
see for yourself:
% /usr/bin/perl -v
This is perl, version 4.0
$RCSfile: perl.c,v $$Revision: 1.7.2.2 $$Date: 1998/03/12 19:27:47 $
Patch level: 36
To get Perl 5, you'll have to install the port (/usr/ports/lang/perl5)
or grab the source and build it yourself. Once you've done so, you'll
probably have to use /usr/local/bin/perl to get Perl 5.
--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.dimensional.com/~mfuhr/
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 03:57:33 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: I can't use any modules in FreeBSD!
Message-Id: <6k2t3d$hhr$2@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc, mfuhr@dimensional.com (Michael Fuhr) writes:
:/usr/bin/perl is Perl 4 on most FreeBSD systems
That's dumb.
--tom
--
The autodecrement is not magical.
--Larry Wall in the perl man page
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 04:48:05 GMT
From: k_wong@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Int() gives wrong result
Message-Id: <6k3025$anh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Hi,
I tried to round something with int() and the result
is kind of strange:
(perl version 5.004_04 built for sun4-solaris)
> perl -de 1
Loading DB
routines from perl5db.pl version 1.01Emacs support available.
Enter h or `h
h' for help.
main::(-e:1): 1
DB<1> $a="592.68"
DB<2> print int($a*100)
59267
I tried printf("%d","592.68*100) and the result is
the same.
Is
there something wrong?
(Please email and post)
TIA,
Kenneth Wong
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 23:40:06 -0500
From: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Inter-process file arbitration?
Message-Id: <6k2vj6$eo8$1@Mars.mcs.net>
In article <6jvc18$i47$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
>In comp.lang.perl.misc, "Jeremy Goldberg"
>:But the open will fail if another process is writing to it!
>
>Stop lying. The only system that would do that would be one designed to
>make multitasking idiocruddyotic. Sounds like Martian programming,
>a queer notion at best, and evil and broken one in all probability.
Errr, well actually it seems to me like having open/lock as an
atomic operation is the correct thing for a multitasking/networked
file system to do. The unix way of making the open/lock separate
operations is the idiosyncratic one, especially when it comes to
devices where open() has side effects before you find out someone
else has the lock. Even with files it takes a bizarre sequence
of operations where you can create a file and then learn someone
else has it locked.
Les Mikesell
les@mcs.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 03:25:57 GMT
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Pinard?= <pinard@iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: LABOR CRISIS: Perl SW Guru NEEDED MA Intranet Start-up 80K+>+Equity
Message-Id: <vrvhqz2dh7.fsf@raptor.IRO.UMontreal.CA>
scott@softbase.com writes:
> Time really flies. [...]
If I remember well, I wrote my first Perl program a bit more than ten
years ago (eleven? twelve?). It was Perl version 1. I decided to try
because it was written by Larry Wall.
Larry Wall was the author of `patch' and `rn', two packages not only very
useful and quite good each in their field, but also being extraordinarily
spectacular (at this time) as they were able to configure themselves! :-)
In these times, when you were sending a personal email to Larry, he was
usually replying within minutes. :-)
--
Frangois Pinard mailto:pinard@iro.umontreal.ca
Join the free Translation Project! http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 02:42:36 GMT
From: mgjv@comdyn.com.au (Martien Verbruggen)
Subject: Re: looking for simple browser - cgi compatible -not lynx -not netscape
Message-Id: <6k2oms$fva$5@comdyn.comdyn.com.au>
In article <3564B97C.2286F50F@mail.mcoe.k12.ca.us>,
Joseph Norris <sirron@mail.mcoe.k12.ca.us> writes:
> Hello group,
>
> I am trying to find a simple browser for my Linux box that will allow me
> to test my CGI scripts. I downloaded netscape for Linux but it has a few
Get lynx.
Write a simple client with libwww to do it.
If you use CGI, you can test and debug without a browser,
Now... What did this have to do with perl again?
Martien
--
Martien Verbruggen |
Webmaster www.tradingpost.com.au | "In a world without fences,
Commercial Dynamics Pty. Ltd. | who needs Gates?"
NSW, Australia |
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 00:19:16 -0400
From: Lloyd Zusman <ljz@asfast.com>
Subject: Re: More double standards out of the FSF
Message-Id: <ltemxnued7.fsf@asfast.com>
robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com> writes:
> Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> >
> > Check out http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html, where you
> > will see a remarkably similar copyright to mine:
> >
> > Copyright 1997, 1998 Richard Stallman
> > Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted without royalty as
> > long as this notice is preserved.
> >
> > I guess only Richard is allowed to use that kind of copyright.
> > I wish I were that special.
> >
>
> That's an opinion piece, not program documentation. Clearly he thinks
> there's a difference. It's just insulting and gratuitously
> antagonizing to say "double standard" without bringing up the argument
> RMS may have for the two different copyrights.
>
> And you are allowed to use any kind of copyright you want. He's asking
> someone else to write a *different* set of perl docs, he is not taking
> your docs. You can still have whatever copyright you are comfortable
> with.
Forgive me if this was covered somewhere else in this thread, but I
didn't see it anywhere in the last 50-or-so posts I read of it so far:
Comparing the O'Reilly books to the FSF documentation is a bit like
comparing apples and oranges, isn't it? Wouldn't it be more to the
point to compare the free Perl documentation to the FSF documentation?
Can anyone who's familiar with the FSF point of view provide the FSF
position on the Perl FAQ's, the Perl man pages, and the other free
Perl documentation (which is "free" pertaining to "cost" as well as
"free" pertaining to "liberty", as near as I can tell)?
> [ ... ]
--
Lloyd Zusman ljz@asfast.com
perl -e '$n=170;for($d=2;($d*$d)<=$n;$d+=(1+($d%2))){for($t=0;($n%$d)==0;
$t++){$n=int($n/$d);}while($t-->0){push(@r,$d);}}if($n>1){push(@r,$n);}
$x=0;map{$x+=(($_>0)?(1<<log($_-0.5)/log(2.0)+1):1)}@r;print"$x\n"'
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 03:52:48 GMT
From: Bill 'Sneex' Jones <webmaster@fccjmail.fccj.org>
Subject: No, I didn't. (was Re: Yeah, Stop it! (was Re: Stop Changing Subject Lines!!))
Message-Id: <3564F4A9.58AA053D@fccjmail.fccj.org>
Bob Trieger wrote:
>
> Peter A Fein wrote:
> >
> > Look, this GPL/Perl/FSF discussion is very entertaining, but it would
> > make some of us *real* happy if you all would stop changing subject
> > lines every post. It makes generating a useful killfile damn near
> > impossible. I'm all for a good intellectual debate every now and
> > then, but these threads have rapidly swamped the perl group.
>
> The devil made me do it.
>
> --
> Bob Trieger | Titanic: big boat, bigger
> sowmaster@juicepigs.com | iceberg, big deal
:-)
-Sneex-
____________________________________________________________________________
Bill Jones | FCCJ Webmaster | Voice 1-904-632-3089 | Fax 1-904-632-3007
Florida Community College at Jacksonville | 501 W. State St. | Jax, FL 32202
mailto:webmaster@fccjmail.fccj.org | http://webmaster.fccj.org/Webmaster
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 00:56:36 -0400
From: rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu (Ronald J Kimball)
Subject: Re: Quiet summary
Message-Id: <1d9ei7f.jssbyxl33e0qN@bay1-104.quincy.ziplink.net>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
> In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> mrw@uiuc.edu (Matthew R. Williams) writes:
> :Would you really want to modify that document and claim any of
> :RMS's bizarre, insane ranting as your own?
>
> Um, no.
Of course not. Tom already has more than enough original, bizarre,
insane ranting. Why, this very thread is full of examples!
--
_ / ' _ / - aka - rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu
( /)//)//)(//)/( Ronald J Kimball chipmunk@m-net.arbornet.org
/ http://www.ziplink.net/~rjk/
"It's funny 'cause it's true ... and vice versa."
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 15:06:10 -0400
From: tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG)
Subject: Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <u1hhg2jtpel.fsf@mary-kay-commandos.MIT.EDU>
Jason Larke <jlarke@anthem.aa.ans.net> writes:
> I think you're right about why Tom is upset.
He's not...
Tom is upset because he's built a livelihood around Perl, and he can't
bear the thought that he might have to do something else someday.
It's crucial to his income that he do what he does; he's done it for
years, and it's not going to stop anytime soon.
Behind almost everything Tom writes on the subject is the question of
where he is expecting to get money from.
Tom is upset because when someone criticizes something that gets him
money, he seems to take it with absolutely no calmness at all--as long
as I've known him, he's been like that. I can only advise people that
when Tom flames off, they ask themselves "is he just irrationally
scared that his current source of money might dry up".
Note the comment he made that "guile will never replace perl". Well,
that's a little like saying "emacs will never replace vi". Probably
true, but irrelevant. There is more than enough room for multiple
tools. Actually, guile fills a different niche than perl, so it's
really like saying "the X Window System will never replace emacs".
Thomas
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 04:46:17 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: Suggestion Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k2vup$lf2$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
tb@mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG) writes:
:Tom is upset because he's built a livelihood around Perl, and he can't
:bear the thought that he might have to do something else someday.
I am thoroughly and utterly disgusted by every lying word you breath.
May your lies follow you to Hell. Begone.
--tom
--
"Developing fewer bugs before you ship is how you succeed. This Rule does
not apply to Microsoft." --Rob Pike
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 03:57:51 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software community (was: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community)
Message-Id: <3J691.99$152.1043244@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <pudge-2105981658520001@dynamic95.ply.adelphia.net>,
Chris Nandor <pudge@pobox.com> wrote:
>Just as if I said McDonald's hamburgers were free for the asking. Knowing
>full well my definition of free (provided with ketchup) is not accepted
>outside of myself, to say that is a lie, unless I fully qualify it.
Please stop with this stupid "free = with ketchup" example. RMS's
definition of "free software" is based on one of the many common
definitions of the word, he didn't make up his definition out of whole
cloth, like you did.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 04:27:12 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: Tom Christiansen attacks the free software community (was: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community)
Message-Id: <6k2ur0$jut$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
:Please stop with this stupid "free = with ketchup" example. RMS's
:definition of "free software" is based on one of the many common
:definitions of the word, he didn't make up his definition out of whole
:cloth, like you did.
I'm sorry Barry, but when Joe Anybody hears the word "free", his thought
is "gratis", not "libre". Go ask someone on the street what a "free
lunch", a "free computer", a "free hamburger", or some "free software"
are. Heck, I'll bet they even get the wrong idea about "free rooms".
Go ahead. This is all very misleading.
--tom
--
"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage
to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the bodies of the
people that I had to kill because they pissed me off." --Anonymous
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 09:37:17 +0930
From: Martin Gregory <mgregory@asc.sps.mot.com>
Subject: Re: What is wrong with this FileHandle code?
Message-Id: <r8k97fuq16.fsf@asc.sps.mot.com>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
>
> In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> jim.michael@gecm.com writes:
> :> $fh = new FileHandle;
> :> if ($fh->open("f1.txt")) {
> :> print <$fh>;
> :> undef $fh;
> :> }
> :
> :OK, adding the parens worked. Neither example (perldoc or Camel) used
> :the parens.
>
> Yup, doc bug. Method calls always need parens for their argument.
> But you really don't want to use the silly module anyway. Why suck
> in 5,000 lines of code when the open function *works perfectly
> fine*,
Is this:
$FH = new FileHandle;
open($FH, "$Name") or die
as bad? Is this 'using the open function' as you put it?
> and about a zillion times faster, too.
You have yet to quantify this claim, nor explain why it is true.
And how often is the speed of an open call an issue, anyway? The real
concern is the generally the speed of the ongoing IO calls. Again,
I'm fascinated to try to understand how the method of invocation can
have such an impact on an operation who's main action is so
intrinsically slow in anycase?
Thanks for any illumination.
Martin.
------------------------------
Date: 22 May 1998 03:55:57 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: What is wrong with this FileHandle code?
Message-Id: <6k2t0d$hhr$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc, Martin Gregory <mgregory@asc.sps.mot.com> writes:
:You have yet to quantify this claim, nor explain why it is true.
It seems subclever to suck in nearly 5,000 lines of code and
seventeen files merely to say:
$fh = FileHandle->new();
open($fh, "< $path");
instead of
open(FH, "< $path");
--tom
--
The Unix Way of doing something [...] is to make it look as much like a filter
as possible. (Richard O'Keefe)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 23:21:39 -0400
From: Bob Trieger <sowmaster@juicepigs.com>
To: Peter A Fein <p-fein@uchicago.edu>
Subject: Yeah, Stop it! (was Re: Stop Changing Subject Lines!!)
Message-Id: <3564EF43.9A2@juicepigs.com>
Peter A Fein wrote:
>
> Look, this GPL/Perl/FSF discussion is very entertaining, but it would
> make some of us *real* happy if you all would stop changing subject
> lines every post. It makes generating a useful killfile damn near
> impossible. I'm all for a good intellectual debate every now and
> then, but these threads have rapidly swamped the perl group.
The devil made me do it.
--
Bob Trieger | Titanic: big boat, bigger
sowmaster@juicepigs.com | iceberg, big deal
------------------------------
Date: 8 Mar 97 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
the single line:
subscribe perl-users
or:
unsubscribe perl-users
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.misc (and this Digest), send your
article to perl-users@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
The Meta-FAQ, an article containing information about the FAQ, is
available by requesting "send perl-users meta-faq". The real FAQ, as it
appeared last in the newsgroup, can be retrieved with the request "send
perl-users FAQ". Due to their sizes, neither the Meta-FAQ nor the FAQ
are included in the digest.
The "mini-FAQ", which is an updated version of the Meta-FAQ, is
available by requesting "send perl-users mini-faq". It appears twice
weekly in the group, but is not distributed in the digest.
For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V8 Issue 2678
**************************************
