SPUG: Re: IO::All

Fred Morris m3047 at inwa.net
Tue May 25 00:10:33 CDT 2004

My first impulse is to say "well, it's easy because these sort of visonary
philosophers: when they fall over and can't get up, they die". I wasn't
referring to the guy at the 'B, either. I was going to try to apologize,
but it's very zen, don't you think? I mean: which one am I talking about?
I'm not even certain:

At 9:35 PM 5/24/04, ced at carios2.ca.boeing.com wrote:
>[...]We religously check 'open' succes but then assume 'print',
>etc. succeed. I try to emulate T. Christiansen's paranoia:
>     From the Perl Cookbook:
>     When opening a file or making virtually any other system call,
>     checking the return value is indispensable. Not every open succeeds;
>     not every file is readable; not every piece of data you print can
>     reach its destination. [...]

Don't you love it how thinks can be chipped away at, until all that remains
is... IO?

So I guess what the world really needs is IO::WhatIWant and IO::ThatCantHappen.

If you have big enough computers, you can game them both. QED.


m3047 at inwa.youbnet

More information about the spug-list mailing list