On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 00:40, Mr. Shawn H. Corey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 04:05 +, Rob Dixon wrote:
>> Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't have any serious objections to the way this list is run. I do
>> > object
>> > to some actions individuals have taken.
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 04:05 +, Rob Dixon wrote:
> Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
> >
> > I don't have any serious objections to the way this list is run. I do
> > object
> > to some actions individuals have taken. Such as lying. If no such poll
> > exists, don't claim that is does.
>
> I am re
Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
>
> I don't have any serious objections to the way this list is run. I do object
> to some actions individuals have taken. Such as lying. If no such poll
> exists, don't claim that is does.
I am responding to this only because you have chosen to call me a liar. I am
n
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 23:41 +, Rob Dixon wrote:
> Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 01:20 +, Rob Dixon wrote:
> >>
> >> bottom-posting being a de-facto standard on this list, and despite
> a
> >> majority of subscribers expecting it and preferring it
> >
> > Really? When
Jack Gates wrote:
>
> Rob, My comments were not directed to you.
>
> My comment was directed at Jenda because Jenda's comments came
> across as flat not giving a da?? about people with phyiscal
> challenges and that is what I was attacking.
Your comments were directed to everyone on the perl.b
Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 01:20 +, Rob Dixon wrote:
>>
>> bottom-posting being a de-facto standard on this list, and despite a
>> majority of subscribers expecting it and preferring it
>
> Really? When was the last poll conducted and where were its results
> published?
emails and a braile keyboard.
That does put a whole new slant on things.
-Original Message-
From: Jenda Krynicky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 6:36 AM
To: beginners@perl.org
Subject: Re: Curly braces and the logic of PERL
From: Jack Gates <[EMAIL
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 10:06:44 am Jenda Krynicky wrote:
>
> We can't care about ALL those who read it. The best we can do is
> to care about MOST. I know it's inconvenient if you are not part
> of the majority, but there is little we can do.
>
That is a cold, callous, self serving statement.
From: Jack Gates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tuesday 28 October 2008 09:20:30 pm Rob Dixon wrote:
> > Jack Gates wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 28 October 2008 10:06:44 am Jenda Krynicky wrote:
> > >> We can't care about ALL those who read it. The best we can do
> > >> is to care about MOST. I know it's inco
From: Rob Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have a particular issue with statements like
>
> /\Q$string/ && print $REPORT "$File::Find::name\n" and return;
>
> which are ugly in the extreme and do not begin to read as English. The style
> comes from Perl's origins on the Unix platform, and use of s
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 09:20:30 pm Rob Dixon wrote:
> Jack Gates wrote:
> > On Tuesday 28 October 2008 10:06:44 am Jenda Krynicky wrote:
> >> We can't care about ALL those who read it. The best we can do
> >> is to care about MOST. I know it's inconvenient if you are not
> >> part of the majori
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 01:20 +, Rob Dixon wrote:
> bottom-posting being a de-facto standard on
> this list, and despite a majority of subscribers expecting it and
> preferring it
Really? When was the last poll conducted and where were its results
published?
--
Just my 0.0002 million dol
Chas. Owens wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 20:28, Rob Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> John W. Krahn wrote:
>>>
>>> The fewer lines of code to read and/or write, the easier it is to spot
>>> mistakes, the less chance for "action at a distance."
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>> Is this
>>
>> sub wanted
Jack Gates wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 October 2008 10:06:44 am Jenda Krynicky wrote:
>>
>> We can't care about ALL those who read it. The best we can do is
>> to care about MOST. I know it's inconvenient if you are not part
>> of the majority, but there is little we can do.
>
> That is a cold, callous
From: "Jack Gates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 10:06:44 am Jenda Krynicky wrote:
We can't care about ALL those who read it. The best we can do is
to care about MOST. I know it's inconvenient if you are not part
of the majority, but there is little we can do.
That is a cold
On Tuesday 28 October 2008 10:06:44 am Jenda Krynicky wrote:
>
> We can't care about ALL those who read it. The best we can do is
> to care about MOST. I know it's inconvenient if you are not part
> of the majority, but there is little we can do.
>
That is a cold, callous, self serving statement.
From: "Jenda Krynicky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That's nice and dandy if you do read the thread in one go. If you
read the original message, then half a day later three separate
responses, next day a response to the third response and another
response to the original post and ... and of course in the
From: "Octavian Rasnita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, this is a limited approach, generated exactly by the fact that some
> programmers don't really care about all those who read, but care the most
> about their own preferences.
We can't care about ALL those who read it. The best we can do is to
On Mon Oct 27 2008 @ 12:35, John W. Krahn wrote:
> The fewer lines of code to read and/or write, the easier it is to spot
> mistakes, the less chance for "action at a distance."
I find that there's a point, however, where compression and understanding
cross paths. After that, the fewer lines and
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 20:28, Rob Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John W. Krahn wrote:
>>
>> The fewer lines of code to read and/or write, the easier it is to spot
>> mistakes, the less chance for "action at a distance."
>
> Not at all.
>
> Is this
>
> sub wanted { return unless -f; open my $FH
John W. Krahn wrote:
>
> The fewer lines of code to read and/or write, the easier it is to spot
> mistakes, the less chance for "action at a distance."
Not at all.
Is this
sub wanted { return unless -f; open my $FH, '<', $_ or die "Cannot open '$_'
$!"; while ( <$FH> ) { /\Q$string/ && print $
"the basic intent is to provide visual clues"
Well, this is a limited approach, generated exactly by the fact that some
programmers don't really care about all those who read, but care the most
about their own preferences.
I am blind and the visual clues don't mean anything, but make the thin
Brian wrote:
Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
This code is written this way because the coder has been playing too
much Perl Golf ;) The objective of Perl Golf is to write a program to
do a simple task in the least number of characters possible. This, of
course, makes it harder to read.
I must adm
Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 17:05 +, Brian wrote:
Hello
This code is written this way because the coder has been playing too
much Perl Golf ;) The objective of Perl Golf is to write a program to
do a simple task in the least number of characters possible. This, of
Bob McConnell wrote:
From: Brian
Why is it "good practice" to write PERL the way it is done?
Discussing coding styles often degenerates into a religious and/or
political argument, but I will try an overview.
Don't worry, I'll be gentle.
If you care to notice, even the prose above has a c
Mr. Shawn H. Corey wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 17:05 +, Brian wrote:
Why is it that some code has no curly braces after print; whilst in
others I sometimes see one or more curly braces after it?
Will there be a time when print; will fail because there isn't a curly
brace following it, ev
On Mon, 2008-10-27 at 17:05 +, Brian wrote:
> Hello
>
> Years ago I used to work with FORTRAN, RPG GAP 2 and a smidgeon of basic.
> Code was written one line at a time, the first section of code was Input
> data, the next section was calculations, the last section was output.
> (For example,
From: Brian
>
> Why is it "good practice" to write PERL the way it is done?
>
Discussing coding styles often degenerates into a religious and/or
political argument, but I will try an overview.
The purpose for arranging code in various styles is to assist the next
programmer on the project. Whil
Telemachus wrote:
On Mon Oct 27 2008 @ 5:05, Brian wrote:
An example of something confusing me is in the sample below
find sub {
return unless -f;
open my $FH, '<', $_ or die "Cannot open '$_' $!";
while ( <$FH> ) {
/\Q$string/ && print $REPORT "$File::Find::name\n"
John W. Krahn wrote:
Brian wrote:
Hello
Hello,
An example of something confusing me is in the sample below
find sub {
return unless -f;
open my $FH, '<', $_ or die "Cannot open '$_' $!";
while ( <$FH> ) {
/\Q$string/ && print $REPORT "$File::Find::name\n" and
On Mon Oct 27 2008 @ 5:05, Brian wrote:
> An example of something confusing me is in the sample below
> find sub {
> return unless -f;
> open my $FH, '<', $_ or die "Cannot open '$_' $!";
> while ( <$FH> ) {
> /\Q$string/ && print $REPORT "$File::Find::name\n" and
> re
Brian wrote:
Hello
Hello,
Years ago I used to work with FORTRAN, RPG GAP 2 and a smidgeon of basic.
Code was written one line at a time, the first section of code was Input
data, the next section was calculations, the last section was output.
(For example, in the sample of code below, the "w
Hello
Years ago I used to work with FORTRAN, RPG GAP 2 and a smidgeon of basic.
Code was written one line at a time, the first section of code was Input
data, the next section was calculations, the last section was output.
(For example, in the sample of code below, the "while" line would have
b
33 matches
Mail list logo
