Re^3: Config::Simple value lost on method call, huh???

you don't need 'rx' to list the files in a directory, just 'r', but you do need 'x' to read into the files (contents, inodes, mtime, etc) if you know the names (which doesn't require 'r' if you know the file name by some other means). There was an example here, but the parent of this note made it redundant.

Comment on Re^3: Config::Simple value lost on method call, huh???

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Config::Simple value lost on method call, huh??? by MidLifeXis (Monsignor) on Aug 20, 2009 at 16:32 UTC
I believe that the example you present was unaddressed in my post, but that is ok. The point is that the 'rwx' semantics on a directory are not necessarily intuitive when you start deviating from the "standard" 'rwx' and 'rx'. Back to the OP - the directory permissions look funky. Look into those. --MidLifeXis The tomes, scrolls etc are dusty because they reside in a dusty old house, not because they're unused. --hangon in this post	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: Config::Simple value lost on method call, huh???
by MidLifeXis (Monsignor) on Aug 20, 2009 at 16:32 UTC

I believe that the example you present was unaddressed in my post, but that is ok. The point is that the 'rwx' semantics on a directory are not necessarily intuitive when you start deviating from the "standard" 'rwx' and 'rx'.

Back to the OP - the directory permissions look funky. Look into those.

--MidLifeXis

The tomes, scrolls etc are dusty because they reside in a dusty old house, not because they're unused. --hangon in this post

[reply]