* sawyer x <xsawy...@gmail.com> [2011-11-07 12:40]: > * Shlomi Fish <shlo...@shlomifish.org> [2011-11-07 18:45]: > > You shouldn't call lexical variables "$a" and "$b": > > That was a completely pointless comment, Shlomi.
Only in sending it to the list instead of as a private comment, and in his way of stating it – as a do-not instead of a suggestion, followed by the reason, followed by an off-topic disclaimer. In the opposite order it would have gone down easy. (OK: and if it didn’t come from Shlomi. Even if he gets better at tone now his reputation would haunt him.) > This is a case where $a and $b makes absolute sense. It is also the > same case as Perl's sort() function that uses $a and $b to indicate > two values of the same importance. There is no real case in which `my $a` or `my $b` make sense in Perl, only a handful of cases where they don’t make no sense. I think his point was a reasonable one, if minor. * Bob Parker <b...@perldevgeek.com> [2011-11-07 21:30]: > * Shlomi Fish <shlo...@shlomifish.org> [2011-11-07 09:25]: > > Well, I hope I didn't also make the same mistake (again). > > Yeah, you did. > > Quite frankly, I have been lurking on this list for years - first > through the web then as an actual subscriber as I currently try to > find time in my schedule to contribute a module that I finally believe > to be worthy of adding to CPAN. > > I have seen a multitude of posts from you, Shlomi, and the vast > majority of them have been of the them of "I don¹t like the way you > are doing it, because it's not the way *I* would do it, but I really > don't have a better way of doing it myself to contribute." > > Nobody likes a know-it-all. But the perpetrators of drive-by ad hominems are popular? Particularly ones who come out of the woodworks to beat on the community punchbag after he has already apologized? > Worse yet, nobody likes a know-it-all without the who doesn't have the > credentials to back up their b.s. You made a mistake to bring up credentials. His have-to-fix-that attitude has driven Shlomi to pick up the upkeep chores of a whole raft of neglected high-profile CPAN modules, and there are quite a few perl patches to his name. Not all of them have been applied, bless his eager heart :-), but neither have all of them gone unappreciated. That looks like a lot more in credentials than you brought to the table. Sure, Shlomi suffers from overly rigid ideas of how to do things and is too eager to dismiss the “old” way along with all other options. But he isn’t stupid either, and he doesn’t just nitpick but contributes. Nor is he is in the habit of flaming people, much less talking about them without knowing who he is talking about. That’s a lot more than can be said about some people. > In this particular case, pretty much everyone clearly understood that > what was given was a GENERIC EXAMPLE, not real code. It didn't call > for code review, comment or criticism on the use of variables or their > naming. What was requested was feedback on the naming of the MODULE. His point was valid, clumsy though his way of stating it was. The abuse he invited with his clumsiness is out of all proportion for his sin. > There is probably a reason why your suggestions are ignored, for > everything from "improving the perl.org site" to "redesigning the perl > training documentation" to ridiculous commentary like this. Dig deep > and you can probably figure it out. A lot of them are ignored. A lot of them are not. -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
