From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-05-04T20:43:57+09:00
Subject: Re: IO::write


"Charles Comstock" <cc1@cec.wustl.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c77oll$hog$1@newsreader.wustl.edu...
> Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > In message "IO::write"
> >     on 04/05/04, Charles Comstock <cc1@cec.wustl.edu> writes:
> >
> > |Why is there only an IO::read, and no equivalent IO::write that takes
a
> > |filename, a string to write, and an optional offset in the file to
start
> > |writing at?  Or better yet an IO::write(filename[,offset])= string to
> > |write to file.  I don't know it seems useful to me for quickly
writing a
> > |response out to a file anyone else?
> >
> > IO::read is a equivalent of
> >
> >   IO::open(path, "r"){|f| f.read(*args)}
> >
> > But IO::write that is
> >
> >   IO::open(path, "w"){|f| f.write(*args)}

Appending is probably useful, too

IO#write ~
    IO::open(path, "w"){|f| f.write(*args)}

IO#append ~
    IO::open(path, "a"){|f| f.write(*args)}

> > is, for my eyes, useless for most of the cases.  Besides that, I don't
> > feel it is intuitive that IO::write to "open, then write once, then
> > close".  Even if we decide to implement the method, we should prepare
> > better name.
> >
> > matz.
> >
> >
>
> The example listed is exactly the use case that I have littered about my
> code quite liberally in one of my applications.  Often it's not the best
> approach to an application but sometimes it's nice to have quick file
> records of application state.

Did you consider using a logging framework?  e.g. log4r
http://log4r.sourceforge.net/

>  I suggested write because of the
> orthagonality between it and read.  Perhaps IO::save or IO::serialize.
> Save might be interesting as you could alias load to do the same as
> read.  Would save/load be a more appropriate name?

See above.

    robert