Re: Re: relaying arguments using system call

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

Comment on Re: Re: relaying arguments using system call

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

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]