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
--- Jeff 'japhy' Pinyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 26, Silvio Luis Leite Santana said:
> >Why does code 1 work, but code 2 doesn't?
> >(the diference is the ; after print)
> >$bissexto and { print "OK\n" };
> >$bissexto and { print "OK\n"; };
>
> In the first code, Perl thinks you're co
--- Silvio Luis Leite Santana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please
> Why does code 1 work, but code 2 doesn't?
> (the diference is the ; after print)
> After all, is it posible or not to put a block
> in place of a expression?
> Thanks in advance
> Silvio
>
> CODE 1 - WORK
>
> $bissexto = ;
> c
On Tue, Jun 26, 2001 at 04:07:06PM -0300, Silvio Luis Leite Santana wrote:
> $bissexto = ;
> chop($bissexto);
> $bissexto and { print "OK\n" };
> print "end\n";
You obviously aren't running with warnings on. With warnings turned on,
your code produces the following (perl 5.6.1):
Useless use
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Silvio Luis Leite Santana wrote:
> CODE 2 - DOESN'T WORK
> (should it work, I'd wish to put more
> than one command inside the curly braces)
>
> $bissexto = ;
> chop($bissexto);
> $bissexto and { print "OK\n"; };
> print "end\n";
I think what you really want is
$bissexto &&
On Jun 26, Silvio Luis Leite Santana said:
>Why does code 1 work, but code 2 doesn't?
>(the diference is the ; after print)
In the first code, Perl thinks you're constructing a hash reference. In
the second code, Perl sees a block where it expects an expression.
>After all, is it posible or no
37 matches
Mail list logo
