Re^4: perlbug: seekdir/readdir broken on win32 on 5.008009, 5.012002, 5.014001

You can bet graphical file explorers make use of it

And you can bet they have been using it since 64kb of storage was plenty (or whatever the saying is)

Comment on Re^4: perlbug: seekdir/readdir broken on win32 on 5.008009, 5.012002, 5.014001

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: perlbug: seekdir/readdir broken on win32 on 5.008009, 5.012002, 5.014001 by ikegami (Patriarch) on Nov 28, 2011 at 19:41 UTC
A graphical explorer wouldn't use this. Not now, not in the days of text-based windowing systems. They need to load the entire directory into memory in order to sort the file names.	[reply]
Re^6: perlbug: seekdir/readdir broken on win32 on 5.008009, 5.012002, 5.014001 by Anonymous Monk on Nov 29, 2011 at 09:09 UTC
A graphical explorer wouldn't use this. Not now, not in the days of text-based windowing systems. They need to load the entire directory into memory in order to sort the file names. Sure, whatever you say, you know all implementation of all explorers by heart, and you can't sort data unless its all in memory at the same time	[reply]
Re^7: perlbug: seekdir/readdir broken on win32 on 5.008009, 5.012002, 5.014001 by ikegami (Patriarch) on Nov 29, 2011 at 14:26 UTC
I didn't say the result had to be kept in memory. What happens to the list as it is read or after it is read is irrelevant. I'm saying you can't sort it without reading it all file names from the directory, so `selectdir` is completely useless to explorers. I don't need to know all graphical explorers to know they don't use `selectdir`; I just need to know that a graphical explorer that doesn't sort file names is useless.	[reply] [d/l] [select]