|Problems? Is your data what you think it is?|
Re^7: Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 1by Wassercrats
|on Sep 06, 2004 at 18:48 UTC||Need Help??|
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.