I respect the desire for this thread to die and won't post any more.
Since you cc'ed me I don't want to ignore this one though.
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:11:29 +0900, Raymond Wan wrote:
> We're merging two points that I never had an intention of merging.
> Randal, Uri, and yourself are experts in
Raymond Wan wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> Steve Bertrand wrote:
>> Not to take away from anyone, but can we please let this thread die, and
>> move on to Perl?
>
>
> I presume the thread will die "when it dies"...
>
> As for me, I didn't let it die because I didn't like the direction it
> was headed..
Steve,
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Not to take away from anyone, but can we please let this thread die, and
move on to Perl?
I presume the thread will die "when it dies"...
As for me, I didn't let it die because I didn't like the direction it was
headed... While I have a different opinion to th
Raymond Wan wrote:
>
> Ian wrote:
>> Another disclosure: English is not my first language so pardon any
>> grammar
>> and spelling mistakes. I try :-).
>
>
> Ian, this is of course my personal opinion, but I don't think that one
> needs to apologize for not having English as a first/native langu
Ian wrote:
Another disclosure: English is not my first language so pardon any grammar
and spelling mistakes. I try :-).
Ian, this is of course my personal opinion, but I don't think that one needs to
apologize for not having English as a first/native language if the other person
doesn't apo
Hi Peter,
Peter Scott wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:34:27 +0900, Raymond Wan wrote:
Randal L. Schwartz wrote :
Personally (and we're now nit-picking natural [human] language), the
fact that these words are coming from my fingers implies it's an
opinion. "I think..." is always implied unless
>>On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>
> >I don't think that's strong enough to clearly state "I have not tested
> this,
> >but I hope this works". I would read that as "of all the possible ways
> >that you can do this, I've done it this way, and found this to be the
> be
Shawn H. Corey wrote:
> Steve Bertrand wrote:
>> Is it appropriate to reply with code that I know for fact works, but
>> rely on the senior members to help catch possible missed edge-cases and
>> optimization issues, and essentially turn my response into an implicit
>> code review? What 'label' wou
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Is it appropriate to reply with code that I know for fact works, but
rely on the senior members to help catch possible missed edge-cases and
optimization issues, and essentially turn my response into an implicit
code review? What 'label' would I pre-declare the code with in
Steve Bertrand wrote:
I could have also used s/0//, but I knew no better then.
s/^0//;
Also:
use Scalar::Util qw{ looks_like_number };
$num += 0 if looks_like_number( $num );
--
Just my 0.0002 million dollars worth,
Shawn
Programming is as much about organization and communicat
Shawn H. Corey wrote:
> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>> This is what makes me trustworthy here. If you want this kind of
>> respect, do
>> the same: if you've actually *tested* a solution, say so. If you haven't
>> tested it, ask yourself if you want your trustworthiness tested
>> instead. :)
>> And
Uri Guttman wrote:
>> "G" == Grant writes:
>
> >>> I have a variable which could contain any number from 01-12. I need
> >>> to remove the leading zero from numbers 01-09, otherwise I get an
> >>> "octal digit" error when the number is used in a calculation. Can
> >>> anyone show m
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
This is what makes me trustworthy here. If you want this kind of respect, do
the same: if you've actually *tested* a solution, say so. If you haven't
tested it, ask yourself if you want your trustworthiness tested instead. :)
And if not, say, "I *think*..."
True but
> "Peter" == Peter Scott writes:
Peter> No, it's the difference between the implication being "I think" and "I
Peter> know." When Randal doesn't qualify his information in a Perl posting,
Peter> it means he's certain, and for a teacher, author, and expert to make a
Peter> public statement wi
> "Raymond" == Raymond Wan writes:
Raymond> Personally (and we're now nit-picking natural [human] language), the
Raymond> fact that these words are coming from my fingers implies it's an
Raymond> opinion. "I think..." is always implied unless each time I typed a
Raymond> word, I asked a com
> "Ian" == Ian writes:
>>> Ian wrote :
>>> This is how I would do it.
I don't think that's strong enough to clearly state "I have not tested this,
but I hope this works". I would read that as "of all the possible ways
that you can do this, I've done it this way, and found this to be the be
> "G" == Grant writes:
>> you never posted the code that was bothering you. it would be helpful to
>> us and yourself to post it. your quoted error made no sense to me given
>> what you also said.
>>
>> uri
G> I use interchange (icdevgroup.org) and things like this always trace
> >>> I have a variable which could contain any number from 01-12. I need
> >>> to remove the leading zero from numbers 01-09, otherwise I get an
> >>> "octal digit" error when the number is used in a calculation. Can
> >>> anyone show me how to remove that leading zero?
> >>
> >> use warni
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:34:27 +0900, Raymond Wan wrote:
Randal L. Schwartz wrote :
>>> And I'm with Uri here... I definitely do *not* answer anything that I
>>> haven't
>>> had experience with, unless I preface my answer with "I think..." so
>>> that Smarter People(tm) can check my work. If o
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:03:15 +, Tony Esposito wrote:
> Anyone have the code that make the 'clock' show when a Perl program is
> running? What I mean by the 'clock' is the command-line movement that
> sequentially does the following (in place):
>
> - \ | / - \ | /
>
> when running it looks lik
20 matches
Mail list logo
