in reply to Re^2: Script using File::Spec fails...
in thread Script using File::Spec fails...

Yes, that change (adding "use File::Basename") corrects the error. I'm simply not fully understanding the distinction between implementing File::Basename and File::Spec, as presented by the text. Thanks!

They're just two modules with different albeit somewhat related functionality. What do you mean with "implementing" anyway? BTW: you have a special and convenient shortcut to make the name of a module into a clickable link, if you like. Just write [mod://File::Basename] and it will render like File::Basename.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Script using File::Spec fails...
by cgmd (Beadle) on May 26, 2007 at 15:02 UTC
    Perhaps my wording has been too vague. The "Llama book" (in Section 15.3) provides an example to demonstrate usage of File::Basename:
    #!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;

use File::Basename;

print "Please enter a filename: ";
chomp(my $old_name = <STDIN>);

my $dirname = dirname $old_name;
my $basename = basename $old_name;

$basename =~ s/^/not/;
my $new_name = "$dirname/$basename";
rename ($old_name, $new_name)
  or warn "Can't rename '$old_name' to '$new_name': $!";

    [download]
    Then a 2nd example, to show additional functionality provided by File::Spec:
    #!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;

use File::Basename;
use File::Spec;

print "Please enter a filename: ";
chomp(my $old_name = <STDIN>);

my $dirname = dirname $old_name;
my $basename = basename $old_name;

$basename =~ s/^/not/;
my $new_name = File::Spec->catfile($dirname, $basename);

rename ($old_name, $new_name)
  or warn "Can't rename '$old_name' to '$new_name': $!";

    [download]
    My question is... What additional functionality has the second script provided? Both scripts run effectively on both unix and windows systems. I'm missunderstanding the advantage that File::Spec should be adding. Also, thanks for the tip about turning module names into clickable links!
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
      What additional functionality has the second script provided?

      With the second script you don't have to know what the path separator is. That is, the main thing that File::Spec provides is portability. You can use File::Spec->catfile(); and it will work on whatever platform the script is run on.

      A more useful example for comparison between unix and windows would be the return value of File::Spec->devnull().

      Check out the File::Spec documentation (for which you provided a link :-) for more details.

      Cheers,
      Rob
[reply]
[d/l]

        I think the point is that both scripts run effectively on both unix and windows. That means that the explicit forward slash works as a path separator on both platforms. So I think cgmd's question is valid, and not yet satisfactorily answered.

        That said, File::Spec is really about portability. It's supposed to free you from caring about such things as path separators on many platforms, such as Mac and VMS.

        A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight
[reply]
      Both scripts run effectively on both unix and windows systems.

      Others answered your question, but the answer is also in your own words, the point being that *NIX and Windows do not exhaust the whole world. Granted: forward slashes work mostly everywhere, but if you're really concerned about portability, go the File::Spec (or File::Spec::Functions) route.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom