SPUG: Re: IO::All

[ced at carios2.ca.boeing.com]

> 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.

I can't quite put my finger on it but I have this strange feeling 
I've been dissed. 

Alright, as a plodding, institutional schlep,  I'm always looking 
for a way to commit hari-kari when sometimes goes wrong with my
moth-eaten code. Far better to die with honor than to be thrust 
through by leering barbarians.

But, I'm jumping right on that IO::WhatIWant/ThatCantHappen bandwagon --  
you were serious right...  Anyway, they sound too complicated: could 
we just roll 'em into IO::DWIM ?

--
Charles DeRykus