Recently I added a feature for our forum at http://www.perl-community.de.
The forum is threaded like perlmonks.
However, in long discussions, when there are a lot of new articles, you still can lose track.
You can click on an author, and it will automatically scroll to the selected article.
When a scroll event happens, the currently visible articles in the window are marked in the mini navigation with a grey bar.
I am writing this to suggest a comment on the Permission Denied page to state that "maybe you used some bad markup syntax. Check the Markup in the Monastery". Details follow.
Last night I struggled posting a response to SoPW. See here. I am learning to use this website and I tried to be helpful by providing a cross reference to another article on this web site. I read Markup in the monastery and discovered the request to use the [ ... ] notation. I have used foswiki for many years and thought I could put [ http://... | and so on. The text in chapter three makes it clear that that is not the case. But hey, it was late and I thought I knew what I was doing.
The result of what I did confused me no end. I got a Permission Denied message. First I thought I had exceeded some limit. The thread ended at 5 responses which I thought was quite long.So I thought that I should register to have such a long post. I did and I am happy to be registered. But I still did not have permission to post.
Then I tried to post a new request, because I did (sort of) diagnose the problem in the thread and had a workaround. I wanted to share the observation. But the new post did not work either.
Then I tried chatterbox and got a very prompt response telling me to persist, because smetimes the server does this kind of thing. As I was waiting I wrote the intro that you find in the referred post. And I had the aha! when I saw that I had incorrect syntax. I changed the syntax and hey! it worked.
So I added my Ooooh... comment at the top as an update (btw. not realising that I could have removed my confused comment instead. I have learned that too :-) )
I am writing this to suggest a comment on the Permission Denied page to state that "maybe you used some bad markup syntax. Check the Markup in the Monastery". Given my confused state, I might not have noticed that either. But smarter people than I may make this mistake and find the comment helpful
Thanks for the assistance provided. And thanks for listening.
It seems like we monks spend a significant amount of time admonishing Seekers of Perl Wisdom to use strict;, use warnings;, and the like. But when posting example code in response to someone's question, what do you include? I've recently begun to question my own habit of almost always including strict (or more recently, use VERSION), warnings, and even the oft-unnecessary shebang. I don't for one-liners or when interleaving multiple fragments among paragraph text.
If recent answers are any indication, equally experienced monks seem to favor both sides of the coin (including a few fans of Modern::Perl). I'm starting to think, however, that where these near-universal statements are concerned, less is more. Why?
First, there are already myriad places strongly urging strict and warnings, and people still submit questions with fundamental bugs which would have been caught had they heeded that advice. In those cases, I'm very likely to specifically mention strict/warnings and show the OP how those pragmas help solve their specific problem. However, in other cases, I doubt quietly including it at the top of my code that answers, say, how to refer the index of an array to another array of the same length is likely to cause an epiphany.
Second, two or three lines are sufficient to answer many questions. But those lines often get lost in the noise of the pragma parade, which significantly bloats the post. While conciseness isn't everything, see above paragraph, and ponder: do those extra lines help answer this poster's question? I believe most of the time, the answer is "no".
But then there is say. Without use 5.010; (or later), use feature 'say';, or perl -E, someone running my example code sees only a moderately unhelpful syntax error:
String found where operator expected at -e line 1, near "say "Just ano
+ther Perl hacker,""
(Do you need to predeclare say?)
syntax error at -e line 1, near "say "Just another Perl hacker,""
I use say() rather quite a lot, less so with some of the other new features. At what point do we assume (most) people get the picture and at least know how to turn the features on? A loaded question, I admit. Perhaps I'm jaded by the scores of "do my homework" posts, or perhaps posting answers without the necessary pragma is just begging additional confusion.
Finally, we're not a code writing service. I don't wish to make it overly difficult to run my examples, but my first responsibility is to improving the OP's understanding of Perl (and anyone else who's curious, I suppose). I'm not quite sure if that's an argument for or against.
All of this thinking has led me here: At the moment, I'm leaning toward dropping the boilerplate unless it seems directly relevant to the question, but updating my signature with a one-liner something like this:
What do the rest of you think? Perhaps I'm putting too much thought into this, but, then again, maybe putting this question to bed once and for all will silence that irritating voice in my head that starts muttering every time I wrap a two line example in four lines of boilerplate. :-)
Just this past week I was given the honor of taking over the disk containing perlmonk.org.
To read the IDE drive I made use of a clever hardware hack by one of my smart colleagues -- a dead USB DVD with its drive removed became a general-purpose external USB IDE reader.
After connecting the drive to my home computer, I created a VM (virtual machine) with RedHat Fedora on it, and wrote several scripts to help add the users IDs, passwords, and files to the respective locations /etc/passwd, /etc/shadow and /home/<username>.
The former owner of the drive will be transferring the domain name "perlmonk.org" to me, after which I will make it available as a webpage and for ssh access for those people who have accounts on it.
As a webpage, it may only be available temporarily -- my ISP (Verizon.net) doesn't technically allow non-static IP addresses like mine to host servers (especially true for commercial websites, but they may complain anyway if there's a lot of traffic) -- and I'd like to avoid getting in trouble with them.
Plus, some of the pages may not show up without modifications, since the structure of /var/www/html is not identical. (Some of this may be correctable once I've had a chance to play with mod_rewrite rules).
But for ssh access, if you had an account on perlmonk.org previously, you should be able to ssh in and have access to your all your files. From a terminal window, the ssh syntax is:
I'm not sure about the idea, but I think it's worth sharing it.
IMHO we had lately a lot more SPAM postings than usual... and in the time window till it's automatically reaped after 5 reap votes those posts are searchable by google.
If we had a section like PerlPoems but called "Quarantine" which is only visible for logged in Monks (or even high ranked enough to consider) those posts could be immediately removed from visibility but still be reachable for consideration.
This might frustrate the spammers enough and help us cleaning the RAT view.
So I discussed this in the CB. At first I advocated for some sitewide setting. After hearing a lot of opinion that it should be up to the user, perhaps this is a setting that could be enabled (disabled?) at the user setting?
How about a setting that automatically puts a readmore tag X lines into a post if it's more than say Y lines long? Perhaps a good initial setting for X and Y would be 10 and 20?
I joined this site in 2006 and have been very on-and-off with my activity since. It seems to me that the site is less active now than six years ago. Is this true? Are there stats as far as posts/quality of posts over time? What other sites are our "competitors?" (Stackoverflow is certainly one)
As times change, so do services, and CPAN is not an exception to that. In the recent years, a site called MetaCPAN has cropped up and it provides a more modern look & feel, easier-to-remember URLs, and an all in all nicer user experience than the classic CPAN site. It supposedly also has a nice API, but I havenít dug into that so far.
Itís a complete mirror and contains everything that the classic CPAN does. Here are some example pages:
In this article, “Let’s Do Away With Anonymous Posting,” Anthony Hatcher argues against, not only the use of truly anonymous postings, but apparently even the use of monikers and user-names. I thought that you might find it interesting, as I did, even though I don’t entirely agree.
(Plus, Anonymous Monkis, I believe, the third highest-ranking non-crowned Pope?)
we appear to have an unrecognised genius in our midst!
The contributions this fellow makes would surely elevate him to the highest levels of the Perl priest(monk?)hood yet he wanders round the monastery, as he has done for years, in the guise of a humble Initiate.
It is often said that those who are best suited for the job are those who don't try to get it, so I propose that we immediately elevate our humble Anonymous Monk to the level of Pope!
If you spot any bugs in my solutions, it's because I've deliberately left them in as an exercise for the reader! :-)
This post is by sundialsvc4, not Anonymous Monk, just in case somehow I get logged-out prematurely. (I didn’t.) Yes, I have said some of these things before. Place your down-votes here to be sure that I get proper credit.
I suggest that all of us should always be asking ourselves, how can we serve these two groups better. (And then, if changes to our venerable perlmonks.pl are called for, actually get changes done.) Why do people come here? What do they want to get from it, and what do they not?
They do want to get:
Answers. Above all. I am (whoever I am ...) “show-stopped” and the clock is ticking. We have all been there.
Peer Review. The best solution is not-obvious. We want to hear the opinions of our peers. We know that the Perl space is actually vast, with all kinds of nooks and crannies, and that someone .. here has already been there.
They donot want to get:
Participant personalities. The moment a thread “gets personal,” it not only becomes off-topic, but it also gets irrelevant and even annoying to people who have to scroll through back-and-forth exchanges. The rules of debate are formalized, but they’re formalized for a reason. The greatest scene in The Fugitive ends with Tommy Lee Jones’ character shouting back, “I don’t care!” His character had one purpose. So do we. The audience doesn’t come to a movie to see back-office politics.
XP wars. So far as I know, PerlMonks is the only forum that provides a means of negative feedback, although a great many offer n people found this post helpful. When I am looking for answers, especially in unfamiliar spaces, it is helpful to zero-in on what other people find helpful. But it isn’t coincidence, I think, that these forums don’t tally negativity, let alone bundle them into a singular “total.” Rotten Tomatoes, the well-known movie review site, tallys, separately, both the fresh and rotten fruits. (And, guess what, I tend to read only the fresh ones.) You heard the opinions of both Siskel (R.I.P.) and Eibert (R.I.P.). Separately. I think that there were carefully market-researched reasons for that.
“Anonymous” egg-throws. No other forum that I know about permits posts to be made anonymously. You must log-in, and if your session times out, you must re-authenticate to proceed. The ability to do so, not only prevents someone from following-up offline with the true author of a particular post, but also encourages the other two things that, I aver, participants do not want to get. Once again, I think there is a reason why every other forum acts differently from this one in this regard.
In the end, movies exist to sell popcorn. Perlmonks similarly exists to provide on point answers and peer-reviews to people who one-and-all “sing for their supper.” Whether we change the site software or not, in the end, it is the Monks who define our effectiveness in doing what we do here. We ought to be “on-point” and “on-message,” collectively, all the time. That message is never particularly about “any of us,” and I think we all should strive to keep it that way ... for them: the folks who buy popcorn.
"Want Mega XP? Prepare to have your hopes dashed, join in on the: poll ideas quest 2013 (Don't worry; you've got plenty of time.)"
WTF is a 'Mega XP'?
This message has greeted me every time I've visited this website for the past two years, and the string 'Mega XP' is noplace on the poll ideas page.
I guess I'm just too stupid to figure out how to make the regular or 'super' search forms search for 'Mega XP' as a single string rather than returning results containing "Mega" and "XP", but in poring over results I see that "mega XP" seems to mean something like "lots and lots and lots of eXperience Points"??
Or maybe it doesn't. In any case no, I'm not especially dying to have them, I've no hopes so feel free to dash them, and I like a good non-sequiter as much as the next Nerd/Geek so maybe I'll visit the poll page again. Someday.
"XP is just a number"
No, 'XP' is two letters. '3' , '5.918287271' , '-7' , now *those* things are examples of what we commonly call 'numbers'. Absent 'context', that is (and Perl is all about context, isn't it?). You've got yours, I've got mine, and now (after considerable effort) mine actually includes some glimmer of your contextual notion of 'Mega XP'. I think.