Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Problems? Is your data what you think it is?
 
PerlMonks  

Re^7: Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 1

by Wassercrats
on Sep 06, 2004 at 18:48 UTC ( #388849=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^6: Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 1
in thread Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 1

I'd appreciate a single, clear example of one or more cases to support your statement "You refuse to accept the fact that you don't know something and that you should learn." Many people appear to be that way at one time or another, but I don't believe I ever have.

Corion gave an example of the ambiguity you're talking about. I didn't answer simply by saying "your wrong" or by referring to past mistakes or by suggesting reading material. That's what YOU just did to me. I suggested using parenthesis to group the parts of the code that should be processed first. If I'm wrong about that working, I should be corrected with something of substance. So far I haven't been.

I'll try to be more specific now, incase that was the problem. Corion's example of why |...| wouldn't work was about having three vertical bars and Perl not knowing whether the first two, last two, or first and last enclose what should be made absolute. For example, if it's the first two, then the third would be considered the bitwise or, or whatever a single vertical bar is. I meant to suggest that you could place the parenthesis around the two vertical bars that you want to act as abs and it will work as intended.

If there are cases in which this doesn't work--maybe even the case I'm using as an example--just point it out and if I understand and you're right, I'll agree (or sometimes say nothing). If I misunderstand, maybe I'll argue, but I can't help misunderstanding sometimes. If you're wrong, I'll likely point that out to you.

Yesterday, ikegami posted a grammar on his scratchpad that supposedly solved this problem without the need for parentheses. It's no longer there, but even Corion alluded to the fact that a grammar to enable proper parsing of my |...| idea could work. As I already said, "I don't know if anything should be changed now, but the proper notation should have been used from the start."

Perl::Improved had the tone it had for a reason. I liked the challenge of finding something bad about each function. It was fun, and it was intended to be funny to others. For continuity, I didn't want to skip a function when I couldn't find something big. For those cases especially, I needed some content besides the critique, and it had to fit the style of the semi-pointless, hopefully funny critique.

It's obvious to me that Perl Monks in general not only is unfair with the voting system (mainly the fault of the monks doing the voting--partially the fault of the powers-that-be for not fixing the problem), but humorless. Or maybe they have that *nix humor that someone suggested I try. I think I'll continue to be myself, you all could be yourselves, and we'll go our separate ways. I'd probably have blown up your computers by not using strict anyway.


Comment on Re^7: Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 1
Re^8: Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 1
by ysth (Canon) on Sep 06, 2004 at 20:44 UTC
    It's obvious to me that Perl Monks in general not only is unfair with the voting system (mainly the fault of the monks doing the voting--partially the fault of the powers-that-be for not fixing the problem), but humorless.
    I'm not humorless, but I'm not going to prove it by claiming to find you funny. (For the humor-impaired, that was a joke.)
Re^8: Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 1
by exussum0 (Vicar) on Sep 06, 2004 at 22:34 UTC
    I'd appreciate a single, clear example of one or more cases to support your statement "You refuse to accept the fact that you don't know something and that you should learn." Many people appear to be that way at one time or another, but I don't believe I ever have.
    I just gave you the book to look up. I own a copy. It EXPLAINS why you are wrong. You expect to be spoon fed, and that's not going to happen further than i already have. You can google everything that everyone has said and it would never be enough. I used to think you were a smart person, but you are just an idiot with narcissistic issues.
    Corion gave an example of the ambiguity you're talking about. I didn't answer simply by saying "your wrong" or by referring to past mistakes or by suggesting reading material. That's what YOU just did to me. I suggested using parenthesis to group the parts of the code that should be processed first. If I'm wrong about that working, I should be corrected with something of substance. So far I haven't been.
    People have given you examples and I gave you a reference to computer scientists athat are more established than you may ever be. Quite frankly, you'll just ignore them too.
    whatever a single vertical bar is. I meant to suggest that you could place the parenthesis around the two vertical bars that you want to act as abs and it will work as intended.
    Changing your pov mid stride? Nice.
    If there are cases in which this doesn't work--maybe even the case I'm using as an example--just point it out and if I understand and you're right, I'll agree (or sometimes say nothing). If I misunderstand, maybe I'll argue, but I can't help misunderstanding sometimes. If you're wrong, I'll likely point that out to you.
    Yes, 'cause you are infallible, since we've never seen you do that.
    Yesterday, ikegami posted a grammar on his scratchpad that supposedly solved this problem without the need for parentheses. It's no longer there, but even Corion alluded to the fact that a grammar to enable proper parsing of my |...| idea could work. As I already said, "I don't know if anything should be changed now, but the proper notation should have been used from the start."
    Well, no one has mentioned anyhwere in this thread where it won't work... riiight.. I got a bridge to sell you too.

    It's obvious to me that Perl Monks in general not only is unfair with the voting system (mainly the fault of the monks doing the voting--partially the fault of the powers-that-be for not fixing the problem), but humorless.
    Votes != money. If you are here for the voting system, you are here for the wrong reason. Also, there is no humour in propogating wrong information.

    Your posts are usually incorrect. You mix it in with humour . Hopefully people will read this post and see, in a neat package, why you should be generally avoided.

    ----
    Then B.I. said, "Hov' remind yourself nobody built like you, you designed yourself"

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://388849]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others chilling in the Monastery: (5)
As of 2014-08-31 01:56 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The best computer themed movie is:











    Results (294 votes), past polls