Re: [patch] Obtaining mode information on an IO object

>>Yes, it came from O_ACCMODE.
>>cf. http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/fcntl.h.html
>>
>>And ruby also has it.
>>  $ ruby -rfcntl -e 'p Fcntl::O_ACCMODE'
>>  3
> 
> 
> Hm, then again that in turn is a good argument for sticking with `accmode', as
> it conforms to a known standard at least. Plus it's not too cryptic, is it?

Well, that's the question.  Who is the target audience, such that this 
would be known, and what is gained from either name?

For those used to a certain sort of Unix C coding, many otherwise 
cryptic names and commands are second nature, and carrying those names 
over to a high level language conveys useful information.

On the other hand, there seems to be a general exhortation (certainly 
something I've often seen mentioned among Rubyists) to write 
self-documenting code and to use clear, descriptive names, rather than 
terse abbreviations that save typing at the expense of long-term clarity.

But see my first point; for the Unix-heads, "accmode" might be terribly 
expressive.  For the rest of the world, people who code in Ruby unless 
there is a compelling reason to drop down to C, "accmode" is probably 
too terse.

"access_mode" should be clear enough to both camps, unless there is 
something about it's behavior that is tied to some special quality of 
the Unix variant, or is likely something only to be of interest to those 
accustomed to a certain low-level coding.

But maybe it's me; I still find myself writing, for example, [].unique, 
only to be reminded that, in RubyWorld, 'unique' has a, um, uniq spelling.


James