Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer
And, I apologize in advance, but it is perhaps the perfect example of how p5p can produce the most inane decisions.
There is a lot more code being used that relies on <> doing the sane thing. Code that uses -n or -p with a wildcard (very common) is clearly expecting sane behavior not dangerous leaking of file names into the execution stream. Almost all of the code that I've seen use <> is expecting it to read from the files named in @ARGV. Duh!
So fixing <> would break some rare hackish code and fix a ton of simple code. People who write hackish code are much better suited to adding -Margv (or whatever it gets called) to get the historic, magical behavior. That makes much better sense than hoping everybody who uses <> in the normal way will know to use some special module or trick just to make things safe and sane.
Heck, it would even be fairly easy to have <> default to be safe and sane while also warning when fed a file name that starts with a filemode character or ends with '|' (and the warning could mention -Margv -- something that would end the warning since the type of behavior would be specified explicitly).
And the story about it having been designed that way is beyond suspicious. If <> had been designed to be the way that it is, then -p would not work the way it does. It was an accident of implementation. And the documentation was simply a restating of that implementation so it was also an accident that it was "documented" to work that way.
The documentation never (unless it was recently updated) said anything close to "beware of file names that start with '<' or start or end with '|' because ..." or even "note that 'perl -pex *' is unsafe" or even "And look how cool it is if you have a file named 'make test |' ...".
The documentation does say lots of thinks like:
The @ARGV array is then processed as a list of filenames.
There is a lot more documentation that <> shouldn't react badly to the file name I close this node with (compared to the so-called "documentation" of the magic behavior by virtue of "is equivalent to the following Perl-like pseudo code" that uses some 'open' which isn't clearly declared to be as magical as Perl's two-arg open).
After hearing of people making noises like "Oh, sure, I've always known it was magic. Heck, everybody did. It is documented. Duh!" I did some searching trying to find evidence of all of these people having "known" this for so long. I only found evidence of people using <> like they expected it to iterate over the names of files in @ARGV.
So, I loudly call "bull" on that decision and its justifications. Not that I (as I've said before) expect this to change anything. p5p has proved to be quite immune to persuasion from me over some years, so I gave it up years ago. It sounds like several people have tried on this point and it is clearly discussed as a fait accompli (if I'm not misusing that term too badly) so I suspect my prediction is pretty safe. Ugh. :)
In reply to Re^2: magic-diamond <> behavior -- WHAT?! (sanity)