The first argument of open()? I have some other problems with it:
- Single argument open — silliness beyond belief
- Combined argument for open mode and filepath (the 3-argument open() remedies that)
Anyway, I feel it would make more sense that open() would return a filehandle instead of modifying one of its arguments and return a flag. But then, Perl didn't work like that in the old days.
| [reply] |
What's wrong with getc?
From perldoc:
getc FILEHANDLE
getc
Returns the next character from the input file attached to FILEHANDLE, or the undefined value at end of file, or if there was an error. If FILEHANDLE is omitted, reads from STDIN. This is not particularly efficient. However, it cannot be used by itself to fetch single characters without waiting for the user to hit enter. For that, try something more like:
That sounds like how I expect getc to work. Or, am I missing something? enoch
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
That sounds like how I expect getc to work. Or, am I missing something?
It does indeed work as the docs say (much like all of Perl's other foibles listed in this thread) but when processing STDIN it doesn't work as one might initially expect (grab a char, return it). This is not so much a fault on Perl's behalf but that of the C implmentation of getc.
HTH
_________
broquaint
| [reply] |
I guess it works as I expected it to, because it works like C and Unix have worked for centuries. Okay, well, when was the epoch again?
Perl is a study in the "History of Unix." If you're not up on the history of Unix, you're going to be shocked by Perl. A lot. Often. Harshly.
--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]
| [reply] |
