That's true, however, there are cases where the cross-platformness (or is thet cross-platformity? platformitude??) of Perl break down. Try perlport for a couple of examples. I've been bitten myself because alarm() doesn't exist on Win32 platforms...
BrotherAde
| [reply]
[d/l] |
So are you suggesting having
use PosixCompliant;
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Perl also can be used for some given platform, and there is no
bad having possibility to check whether a script that designed
for a special platform is really executed on that platform.
In general, yes, it is good to write portable scripts, but
sometimes it is important to use some local internals
that do not exist everywhere
And why there exist a whole bunch of Win32::* modules,
which are no way portable?
Vadim.
| [reply] |
There are tons of OS specific features that are both widely used and embedded into perl. This hasnt balkanized it onto one platform. And most of those features are UNIX specific. In fact as a solely NT user I come across UNIX specific code all the time, but it pretends to be portable when it isnt.
Also note that nothing in the OP's idea would change your current practice. Nothing would _force_ you to use the feature.
Yves / DeMerphq
---
Writing a good benchmark isnt as easy as it might look. | [reply] |
Didn't you ever heard that sometimes perl can be used
for administrative programming, and WMI managing is an example, and this will work for Win2000 and will not for WinNT (there are no such COM objects there) ?
In this case I can suggest you to read some materials to become a bit more knowledgable person.
If you don't know about a possibility this does not mean such possibility does not exists.
Courage, the Cowardly Dog.
PS. I knew I not gonna like this | [reply] |