Core vs posix gh 16163 20240505 #22197
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
As we did in bda53d3, update description of these POSIX functions to reflect the fact that they differ from the corresponding builtin functions in that they require an explicit argument, i.e., they cannot reply on an implicit $_. Add tests to exercise this property in t/usage.t. For: GH Perl#16163 (partial)
POSIX::umask(), unlike the builtin umask(), cannot rely upon an implicit $_. It needs an explicit argument when being called. For: GH Perl#16163 (now complete)
jkeenan
added
documentation
POSIX
defer-next-dev
tonycoz
approved these changes
May 8, 2024
book
removed
the
defer-next-dev
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This pull request should (a) complete the documentation advised in #16163; (b) provide tests to exercise that documentation. Since this is non-urgent and may take some time to double-check, I'm going to label it 'defer-next-dev' -- but we can begin code review now. Thanks.