From: Martin DeMello <martindemello@...>
Date: 2008-07-11T06:40:20+09:00
Subject: Re: file modes

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Daniel Berger <djberg96@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 10, 1:48 pm, "Martin DeMello" <martindeme...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> A post on Arc [http://arcanesentiment.blogspot.com/2008/07/arc-gets-io-right.html]
>> made an excellent point - file modes are essentially exposing a low
>> level implementation detail for a high level feature. Would be nice to
>> have File.open_read, open_write and open_append (or less clunky names
>> if anyone can think them up; it's the principle of the thing) to
>> support the common cases.
>
> I don't agree. First, there are too many possible combinations, making
> separate method names infeasible IMO.

The modes are still there in .open if you need them; they just aren't
exposed in the common cases.

> Second, tradition.

And if you want them :)

>Third, it's more code (and more maintenance) for the core developers.

Not that much more; it's just a few methods

> Fourth, if we follow that line of reasoning for other libraries (think Socket),
> the API will explode.

From what I've seen, that's not necessarily inconsistent with the ruby
way. Just needs good documentation.

martin