On 20 Nov 2007, at 12:29 PM, Chas. Owens wrote:
-snip-
People can do whatever they want, but there is always the question of
reasonableness.
-snip-
Can we all agree that we've officially gone past any semblance of
"reasonableness" by having had this thread continue after it has
already achieve
On Nov 19, 2007 9:13 PM, Rob Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
> Hey, if Randal can get upset by daft disclaimers, why can't someone else
> take offence at a long advertising sig?
snip
People can do whatever they want, but there is always the question of
reasonableness. Schwartz's sig is four
Jenda Krynicky wrote:
>
From: "Omega -1911" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
And I used to love your articles in various mags... Thank God for the
many others that are *really* here to help on this list.
Sometimes the best help you can get is a slap and an explanation why
you got it. You might not li
"Omega -1911" schreef:
> Thank God for the
> many others that are *really* here to help on this list.
*PLONK*
--
Affijn, Ruud
"Gewoon is een tijger."
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://learn.perl.org/
From: "Omega -1911" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And I used to love your articles in various mags... Thank God for the
> many others that are *really* here to help on this list.
Sometimes the best help you can get is a slap and an explanation why
you got it. You might not like it at the moment, but it
On Nov 18, 2007 8:21 PM, Omega -1911 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I got a kick out of Randal's comment "I helped build this internet."
>
> QUESTION FOR RANDAL: What about the many other (million+ developers)
> on this island, Gilligan?
>
> And I used to love your articles in various mags... Thank G
I got a kick out of Randal's comment "I helped build this internet."
QUESTION FOR RANDAL: What about the many other (million+ developers)
on this island, Gilligan?
And I used to love your articles in various mags... Thank God for the
many others that are *really* here to help on this list. You ca
From: Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:09:50 -0500, Chas. Owens wrote:
> > Because of netiquette. It isn't just Schwartz who is offended by this
> > sort of thing, it is offensive to everyone who remembers the time
> > before Eternal September. It is also a good idea to co
> "Peter" == Peter Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Offensive or otherwise, the list is not the place to flame about it,
On the contrary... in the absence of a special "meta" list, meta information
is *always* on topic on a list. Otherwise, where would it get discussed?
Peter> The d
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 13:09:50 -0500, Chas. Owens wrote:
> Because of netiquette. It isn't just Schwartz who is offended by this
> sort of thing, it is offensive to everyone who remembers the time
> before Eternal September. It is also a good idea to conform to
> netiquette because people are more
On Nov 14, 2007 12:59 PM, Omega -1911 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --
>
> Oh hell, why doesn't *the great one* create a regex to remove
> contiguous lines that contain *certain* words on his end? Oh my fault,
> this list is his kingdom... Perl's excellent for text manipulation.
snip
Because of n
> --
Oh hell, why doesn't *the great one* create a regex to remove
contiguous lines that contain *certain* words on his end? Oh my fault,
this list is his kingdom... Perl's excellent for text manipulation.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTE
Chas. Owens wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007 9:45 AM, Jay Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While I certainly share your annoyance, I don't think we should punish
people for their employers' sins.
The problem is that there is no way to correctly guess where the
content ends and the sig begins (damn uns
;s really pretty inexcusable to thrust on a
> > mailing list. Did I mention it's pointless, and unenforcable?
> >
> > Please don't post here from that account. Get a free account somewhere.
> > Keep your sig and boilerplate to 4 lines or less.
> >
> > T
pointless, and unenforcable?
>
> Please don't post here from that account. Get a free account somewhere.
> Keep your sig and boilerplate to 4 lines or less.
>
> Thank you for helping keep the internet a sane place.
>
Is there any way majordomo could be set up to automatically stri
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John W . Krahn) wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 13 November 2007 13:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 9:13 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
> > > > > long disclaimer> So, you have a one line question, and 15 lines of
> > > disclaimer
> >
> > Oh, no, Randal,
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 13:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Nov 13, 9:13 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
> > > long disclaimer> So, you have a one line question, and 15 lines of
> > disclaimer
>
> Oh, no, Randal, you didn't READ it, did you? Surely you are not
> specificall
On Nov 13, 9:13 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randal L. Schwartz) wrote:
> disclaimer>
> So, you have a one line question, and 15 lines of disclaimer
Oh, no, Randal, you didn't READ it, did you? Surely you are not
specifically the "intended recipient" of the message, so you are
"strictly prohibited" fr
arketing or recommending to another party
any transaction or matter addressed herein.
So, you have a one line question, and 15 lines of disclaimer, which is not
even legally enforcable? That's really pretty inexcusable to thrust on a
mailing list. Did I mention it's pointles
--On Sunday, August 17, 2003 5:08 PM +0100 Rob Dixon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Glad you're on track, but I'd prefer no 'F's. RTM is fine :)
What does Robert T. Morris have to do with it? :-)
One thing that makes life easier for us people on windoze to use perldoc is
to grab a copy of less t
Robert Mark White wrote:
> Thank for all your explanations, yours were better than the books.
> Your right about perldoc perl, I found it a couple of hours after I wrote
> the orginal messge
> I had been reading for 4 hours when i wrote the orginal message.
> now after another 8 hours of RTFM even
Thank for all your explanations, yours were better than the books.
Your right about perldoc perl, I found it a couple of hours after I wrote
the orginal messge
I had been reading for 4 hours when i wrote the orginal message.
now after another 8 hours of RTFM even I can find many of my own mistakes.
Robert wrote:
>
> Please don't say RTFM
I don't think we've ever said that. But we often say
Please RTM /here/
> Please be gentle with me ..
We will. There are a few things that don't go down too
well: usually doing other people's work for them. But
if you&
Robert --
...and then Robert Mark White said...
%
% Dear Gentle Readers,
%
% Please be gentle with me as this is only my first day trying to learn perl.
Hey, we've all been there :-)
I can't recommend highly enough the "Learning Perl" and "Programming
Perl" books. I read "Learning" to get sta
On Aug 16, Ramprasad said:
>open IN , $inputfile || die "COuldnot open in file\n";
A see many things unfavorable here. Because you're using the || operator,
the only time die() will be called is if $inputfile is a false value. You
haven't included the filename nor $! in the error message, and I
probably the best book you
can get to set you on your way.
-Original Message-
From: Robert Mark White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 16 August 2003 06:44
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Please don't say RTFM
Dear Gentle Readers,
Please be gentle with me as this is only my firs
Robert Mark White wrote:
Dear Gentle Readers,
Please be gentle with me as this is only my first day trying to learn perl.
I am using an online tutorial, however it must be written for *nix and I am
trying to use it on win32.
man perl does not even work.
I have already found some other differences.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 11:44:04PM -0600 Robert Mark White wrote:
> Please be gentle with me as this is only my first day trying to learn perl.
> I am using an online tutorial, however it must be written for *nix and I am
> trying to use it on win32.
> man perl does not even work.
We'll come to t
Dear Gentle Readers,
Please be gentle with me as this is only my first day trying to learn perl.
I am using an online tutorial, however it must be written for *nix and I am
trying to use it on win32.
man perl does not even work.
I have already found some other differences. For example, the tutori
From: "Crowder, Rod" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As I said, please don't shout at me
We wount shout. We pity you.
> A situation has arisen at work, where a new application which has been
> bought requires VB script to do pattern matching and string
> modification.
go to the microsoft site and look for VB script.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/nhp/Default.asp?contentid
=28001169
"Rod Crowder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> As I said, please don't shout at me
>
> A situation h
Many thanks, this looks useful.
I appreciate the help as this is slightly OT
Regards
Rod Crowder
The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the individual
or entity
to whom it is addressed. Its contents (including any attachments) are
confidential
and may contain privileged
Look if the archive below contains some interesting info for what you want.
HTH,
José
== THE ARCHIVE
From: Ben Crane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is there a way of using perl's amazing
> pattern-matching skills within VB???I find using VB to
> query txt files, etc to be more cumbersome and less
> frie
As I said, please don't shout at me
A situation has arisen at work, where a new application which has been
bought requires VB script to do pattern matching and string modification.
Yes I know that it is easier in Perl, (and the app supports perl) but the
PHB has decreed that the VBscript
Re: split to hash.
send digitally signed messages like that -- they're annoying.
---
Matthew Lyon
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
35 matches
Mail list logo
