Re: relaying arguments using system call

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: relaying arguments using system call by jonnyfolk (Vicar) on Mar 21, 2003 at 08:54 UTC
Now I know why it's called @ARGV - as in @AAARRRGH!V. I tend to tiptoe around the site on my best behaviour because I don't know very much and there's a lot I can learn here by watching and 'listening'. I thought if I looked at perldocs and used their suggested code that this time I would be beyond reproach. Apparently not. Have a nice day!	[reply]
Re: Re: Re: relaying arguments using system call by helgi (Hermit) on Mar 21, 2003 at 10:36 UTC
I think your perldoc inspired code is just fine. I think "and" is mistaken. -- Regards, Helgi Briem helgi AT decode DOT is	[reply]
Re: Re: relaying arguments using system call by helgi (Hermit) on Mar 21, 2003 at 10:35 UTC
Why do you feel this is better? I personally find the former much more readable and understandable to others. Is there any reason to expect this not to work in Perl6? Enquiring minds want to know. -- Regards, Helgi Briem helgi AT decode DOT is	[reply]
Re:x3 relaying arguments using system call (or japhygesis) by grinder (Bishop) on Mar 21, 2003 at 12:14 UTC
Well actually neither way (`system == 0 or die` versus `system and die`) will work as expected in Perl 6 for the simple reason that the return code of system will be switched around. 0 will indicate failure, 1, success. Which means that you'll finally be able to write code which appears follows the usual logic such as for opening files: `if( !system( qw/ifconfig eth0 down/ )) { die "could not ignore the world\n"; }` [download] You can fix Perl5 to behave like this now. japhy posted some code in japhygesis that switches this (and other inconsistencies) around to make things flow more naturally. _____________________________________________ Come to YAPC::Europe 2003 in Paris, 23-25 July 2003.	[reply] [d/l]