From: kwatch <kwatch@...>
Date: 2008-09-15T22:07:56+09:00
Subject: Re: Q: IO.read() and IO.write()

Thank you for everyone who replied me.

On 2008/9/5 Robert Klemme <shortcut...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >  IMO, File.read() is more natural than IO.read() because
> >  IO class is not related to filename, I think.
>
> You can as well use File.read().

I know it. My question is that File.read() is more natural than
IO.read() because filename is related with File, not IO.


>
> Why don't you just create a library of things you regularly need and
> require that?

It is one solution, but not answer for my question.


>
> >  It is easy to define File.write() but I hope it is provided by Ruby.
>
> Probably because writing is more dangerous and also there are more
> options to file writing than to read (beginning vs. at end, create or
> not, text vs. binary).

Your points apply to IO.read() as well as IO.write().
IO.read() is provided in default regardless it doesn't support binary
mode.

Don't get me wrong. I have just question, not blame.


On 2008/9/15 Brian Candler <b.cand...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >   I have to define File.write() for each project...
>
> Do you mean you want:
>
>    File.write(filename, string)
>
> to overwrite the contents of the named file with the contents of the
> string?

Yes.


> I'd just do
>
>    File.open(filename,"w") { |f| f << string }
>
> It's not much more typing. If you use it lots, then as you say, you can
> write your own method to do it.

Yes, it is not so long, but IO.read(filename) is provided
in spite that IO.open(filename) {|f| f.read } is also short.

It is odd for me that IO.read() is provided and IO.write() is not.
This is asymmetric.

--
regards,
makoto kuwata