Re: Re: Re: more than 3 arguments to open?

Checked your other posts from the last couple of days, Hm...your tone is alwasy so feverish. Are you a monk? or a combatant?

This is not the first time, you see features SPECIFIED in document, but not implemented. One simple example: alarm is not implemented on win32, even in perl 5.8, but alarm is still documented, and it is never stated anywhere in doc that alarm actually does not work on win32.

This does not mean that people can not discuss, and make themselves ready for the future.

I pray for PEACE.

Comment on Re: Re: Re: more than 3 arguments to open?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: more than 3 arguments to open? by kabel (Chaplain) on Jan 07, 2003 at 08:23 UTC
[...] it is never stated anywhere in doc that alarm actually does not work on win32. it is even worse. have a look into the windows quirks section. there is a list which contains all not-implemented functions on the win platform - the alarm () function is mentioned here. the point is that alarm () does work (AS 5.8 804) in spite of being not implemented ... ;) on the other hand, why should unix specifics be implemented on an other platform?	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: Re: more than 3 arguments to open? by blokhead (Monsignor) on Jan 07, 2003 at 07:55 UTC
Hmm, maybe it's cabin fever. But you are right, a few of my recent nodes might give a bad impression. Anyway, I haven't been consciously trying to nitpick or be confrontational. Maybe we can call it over-enthusiasm. Taking a break from the computer... `;)` blokhead	[reply]