Robert Klemme wrote:
> "Simon Strandgaard" <neoneye / adslhome.dk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:20040520180647.57559b82.neoneye / adslhome.dk...
> >
> > Solved, just discovered that #dup clones, but without
> > cloning the position.  Shouldn't #dup clone the file position,
> > rather than leaving it as garbage ?
> 
> Probably.  OTOH hand I view file positions as tentative: you have to re-seek
> anyway if you want to change from reading to writing or vice versa and in
> some other situations I believe.

Yes the file concept is in general old.. it has some oddities.
Accessing files as iterators are a more modern approach.
But thats another story.

What really took me long time today was that I thought File#dup was broken
and didn't performed clone.. then it took me half another hour to come 
up with the other idea f1.clone.reopen(f1), which just were ugly.
Finally I discovered that all this confusion were caused because #dup
did not copy the file-position and that I have to re-seek afterwards.

What would be nice if make #dup would copy the file-position.

Otherwise add a few pages to RI about File#dup, that you have to
do the seek manually afterwards.

Am I the only one which is frustrated about this ???

--
Simon Strandgaard