Re: open vs. sysopen

According to the book I am using the basic format for sysopen is:

      sysopen HANDLE, $filename, O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC;

Not a great difference I admit, but it may be significant. The sysopen examples I can find do not use parentheses between open command and filehandle. Easy enough to test at any rate. And you are not trying to use open and sysopen on the same file are you? (Didn't think so.)

It would help if you would include the entire error message in your next post.

HTH,

xenchu

The Needs of the World and my Talents run parallel to infinity.

Comment on Re: open vs. sysopen Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
full error message by sheep (Chaplain) on Dec 26, 2003 at 23:50 UTC
It would help if you would include the entire error message in your next post. I changed `ascii_error()` to `die()` and recieved the following error: `ERROR: No such file or directory at /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/CG/Binary.pm line 479.` -sheep	[reply]
Re: Re: open vs. sysopen by Anonymous Monk on Dec 26, 2003 at 19:11 UTC
Easy enough to test at any rate And easy enough for you to test to find out that parentheses around the arguments are not a problem. You could also check the docs and notice that all the code examples in perlopentut, as well as the examples of sysopen in the open documentation all use parentheses. Perl is a programming language, not a guessing game. You might as well have asked if the OP walked around his chair three times chanting bits of the Katha Upanishad before running the code. Not a big difference, and easy enough to test right?	[reply]