Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
XP is just a number
 
PerlMonks  

Re^10: IO::Lambda: call for participation

by dk (Chaplain)
on Jan 06, 2009 at 18:37 UTC ( #734485=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^9: IO::Lambda: call for participation
in thread IO::Lambda: call for participation

Hmm.. Indeed, read() and write(), being the first predicates implemented, stemmed from classic on_read and on_write, and by doing that I deliberately walked away from the on_xxx semantics. I agree that besides being an established API, there are not many arguments against switching from read to on_read or readable. However, do you think that the other conditions should be renamed too? How about names in the neighbor modules, such as connect(), dbi_select(), dns(), etc so many? Or, let me rephrase, how important is presence of on_ in on_read? Even though I'm more inclined in converting "read" into "readable", I doubt that this can be done unambiguously for all cases, like it is with the "on_" prefix. Possibly that decision sacrificed clarity for the sake of brevity. But possibly not, I don't know really.

As for the second advice, I agree. If the absence of perl signature causes confusion, the signature shall be added.

On the side note, I'm thinking about all the advices given, and I see that deciphering the information compacted into the current manual could result in a fairly large article. I'm thinking to write it using a wiki or something, I don't know, I never done anything like that, so that the documentation and the module itself will be subject of discussion while being written, not postfactum. As soon as I write a first draft, I'll post it here for review.

Again, thank you for not giving up and digging further!

  • Comment on Re^10: IO::Lambda: call for participation

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://734485]
help
Chatterbox?
[Corion]: But yes, "who started this process" is interesting information :)
[tye]: no, I really believe that "login user" was added as a fundamental bit of info about each process in order to enhance the usefulness of auditing
[Corion]: Ah - if that information is saved in a file, then you could theoretically spam that file and confuse getlogin(). So, don't use it for authentication :)
[tye]: that is what getlogin() certainly *used* to do. I don't believe that is what it certainly should do.
[davido]: /var/run/utmp is 664 i think.
[tye]: Note that my "man getlogin" says that it uses stdin when it should use /dev/tty (calling a glibc bug). But that does not appear to be the case when I test it. But maybe Perl's getlogin() is not using glibc's getlogin().
[oiskuu]: well, run a strace and see what the getlogin does for you.... As I said. SELinux probably has those security labels. But not regular linux.
[tye]: for example, read https://unix. stackexchange.com/ questions/146138/ loginuid-should-be -allowed-to-change -or-not-mutable-or -not
[tye]: I'm not using SELinux and it certainly appears to disagree with you. shrug
[tye]: Since you brought up /proc, oiskuu, I didn't see you respond to my suggestion of 'loginuid'. Does your /proc not have such?

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chanting in the Monastery: (6)
As of 2017-06-23 19:46 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    How many monitors do you use while coding?















    Results (554 votes). Check out past polls.