Re^3: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? -- good habits by Discipulus (Canon) on Nov 22, 2017 at 18:58 UTC
Mah, I messaged the OP few seconds after he posted telling him there was almost no content. I supposed some error by his part. After this i messaged in the CB that after 15 minutes I would marked the post for reaping and I do it. Error or not I perceive not so kind a post with just the subject; I receive many mails of this sort at work and I dislike them. Anyway we have consideration and I was relying on it: I downvoted the post and marked for reaping but, as you can see, we collectively decided for the post to stay: at the moment it has Keep: 3, Edit: 5, Reap: 2. So if it's ok for us it's ok for me. In any case I still dislike posts with question in the title; this is against principles of How do I post a question effectively? that starts with: > If you want to get good answers: Paste actual code that reproduces the.. So even few words of kindness would be more appreciated by me in posts, even if very syntetic. Consider also that the OP had 336 posts already wrote before this one and he it's here since 2007. If DRY is good habit it's not a religion and you risk to become too DRY as a Martini .. ;=) L* There are no rules, there are no thumbs.. Reinvent the wheel, then learn The Wheel; may be one day you reinvent one of THE WHEELS.	[reply] [d/l]
Re^5: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? -- good habits by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Nov 22, 2017 at 19:18 UTC
I understand that I guess but I asked what would have improved it. It was a valid if brief question. Repeating would not have improved it. Chit chat would not have improved it, objectively speaking. It was a casual question perhaps better suited for the CB but I still found it interesting—I expected the answer to not be 5.8—and devoid of offense. I was surprised that anyone took same.	[reply]
Re^6: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? -- good habits by LanX (Saint) on Nov 23, 2017 at 16:44 UTC
My 2 cents The post could be improved in many ways Prior to Hauke 's reply I had no clue about the context. I didn't know what "n/t" is supposed to mean (neither did Hauke nor you) So I messaged him without reaction. He prefers blunt exchanges He got links to the house rules. > I understand that I guess but I asked what would have improved it. He could have provided context like "unicode notation" for the unwary provided a link to relevant POD describing the feature shown us what he already tried to avoid duplicity Finally Ikegami is right, it's the post before the title, the title is just narrowing the subject. At least he could have said something like, "the title says it already. ..." Finally it's not up to us to compensate laziness Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^7: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? -- good habits by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Nov 23, 2017 at 16:54 UTC
Re^8: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? -- good habits by LanX (Saint) on Nov 23, 2017 at 17:05 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^5: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? -- good habits by LanX (Saint) on Nov 23, 2017 at 15:06 UTC
> I would marked the post for reaping and I do it. Actually you didn't. :) > question in the title and almost no content. OP msged No mention of "reap:" I'm always confused by considerations consisting of a why but without any what ? Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^4: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Nov 22, 2017 at 19:20 UTC
The title always repeats the post, so you're arguing we should never use a title (because it's anti-DRY and because you appreciate terseness). That obviously makes no sense. The title and the body of the post have different roles, so DRY doesn't apply.	[reply]
Re^5: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" ruffle feathers? by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Nov 22, 2017 at 20:00 UTC
If that needless repetition was an overly ambigious critique, I'll back up to ask again the why that you did not answer. I asked, why is this– Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? n/t –is inferior to this– Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? You answer apparently is, "Because. Also, if we just side-step the question and context for a moment and extrapolate to all posts ever and pretend like the word title doesn't mean something, it's obvious you're wrong to even ask why this OP was offensive."	[reply]
Re^6: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" ruffle feathers? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Nov 23, 2017 at 15:41 UTC
Also, if we just side-step the question and context for a moment and extrapolate to all posts ever and pretend like the word title doesn't mean something, You're the one pretending the word title means something different that it does. The title is useful in some circumstances (e.g. searches, RAT, etc), but it's useless (or even detrimental) when reading the post. It's the post that should have the substance, and it's the title that's the derived value.	[reply]
Re^5: Since when did "\N{U+5678}" work as an alternative to "\x{5678}"? by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Nov 22, 2017 at 19:44 UTC
The title always repeats the post, so you're arguing we should never use a title. That obviously makes no sense.	[reply]


more useful options
	PerlMonks