LPM: perldoc perlerrors
Frank Price
fprice at mis.net
Tue Aug 29 16:58:52 CDT 2000
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 05:51:48PM -0400, Matt Cashner wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 ken.rietz at asbury.edu wrote:
>
> > How about a compromise? Create something like a header file that defines
> > $SYSTEM_CALL_SUCCESS = 0;
> > $SYSTEM_CALL_FAILURE = 1;
> > for now, and use only the symbolic values in the code. Then change the
> > header for Perl 6.
>
> we are talking about documentation here arent we? i wasnt talking about
> writing code dependant on that feature but rather documenting this
> feature. because someone someday will be given a crap load of perl5 code
> that depends on system's return value and (if 6 changes this
> drastically) wonder what in the world their predessor (sp??) was
> thinking. (I speak from experience here but in relation to perl4-ish
> code.) so documentation of this feature might be nice.
Yes, I think we're just talking about documenting this feature, and as
has been noted, a good "NB: this feature will reverse itself in perl6"
is a good idea :-)
> but yeah, i
> agree. dont write production code that is dependant on a feature you know
> will probably change in the next few years.
Hmmm. What if you have to write that code now? Since perl5.6
currently returns 0 on success from a system() call, and given that
checking that return is a good idea ... what other option do I have?
I don't really want to get in a shouting match about this, just my
thoughts.
-Frank.
--
Frank Price | fprice at mis.net | www.sxse.org/fprice/
GPG key: www.sxse.org/fprice/gpg.asc | E Pluribus Unix
More information about the Lexington-pm
mailing list