Re^6: The implementation of SIGHUP in Win32 Perlby klaten (Novice)
|on Sep 03, 2013 at 20:26 UTC||Need Help??|
The last thing you wrote in this thread was:
I didn't say your response was too slow. Indeed, I demonstrated that, by waiting for it and then expending further effort assessing that response. But no more. Bye.
Thanks to having to pad around an empty warehouse for sixteen hours yesterday, I have had much time to ponder our exchange here on PerlMonks. Your remarks felt like a "summary dismissal," and if that was your intent, then please forgive my inability to simply leave it at that.
After years of "lurking," this was my first thread on PerlMonks. You, and your postings were one of my main motivations for becoming active here in the first place. The reason I knew the signal code was in win32.c was because you posted it, here, besides my own experiences, I know the SIGHUP implementation is problematic based on your postings, here. I'm a big boy, and I'll soldier on, but it stings a bit to be dismissed by someone whose writings (both technical and personal — that is powerful stuff you wrote in your profile) you learn from and admire.
Some of your remarks during this exchange left me feeling as if I tripped over some unknown PerlMonks etiquette land mines and if so, I'd really like to know what they were so I can avoid them in the future. For example, in one post you wrote:
If I ignore you in future; it won't be because of your lack of standing in the Perl community. (For all I know you could be Larry himself).
Well, because I do value your opinion, I sincerely hope you won't ignore me in the future, but, you never said what I wrote to flirt with your "ignore him" button.
Perhaps you felt I ignored your remarks: when you wrote,
My finding are that there is no implementation of SIGHUP on windows. What is there doesn't appear to do anything useful; and it is hard to see what use it would be put to if it did do something useful.
I didn't challenge that. Your experiences are extensive and I imagine your research to be significant. But, naive, inexperienced me wants the implementation to be "useful." Maybe it's wishful thinking upon my part, but the author of that code in win32.c put it there for a reason, and I'm willing to "tinker" around with it a bit more to make it so. At one point, inexplicably to me you wrote in what seemed to be a sarcastic tone: "But hey. What do I know." Well, as I've written earlier, I know you know a lot.
At one point, you wrote, in response to an opinion I voiced, "But the attitude...." Maybe I'm tripping over an unknown difference between British and American English, but on the south-side of Chicago, having the wrong "attitude" can get you killed! So what attitude did I project?
In closing, I must say, thank you. I got what I expected out of my meditation. I put an idea out to be subjected to criticism and I appreciate the time you (and moritz) put into your responses and questions. (my answer to moritz has led me to abandon my, as you called it, "absurd" idea about a time delay before returning with a perhaps even more preposterous "infinite loop"). I am wiser and more informed than I was when I first posted. If you feel your time was wasted, I am sorry, but I do feel you are much better suited to be a mentor than a cynic.