Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Syntactic Confectionery Delight
 
PerlMonks  

Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 1

by NodeReaper (Curate)
on Sep 04, 2004 at 23:10 UTC ( #388534=perlmeditation: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

This node was taken out by the NodeReaper on Sat Sep 4 19:25:47 2004 (EST)
Reason: Aristotle delete, troll

For more information on this node visit: this

Comment on Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 1
Re: Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 1
by Grygonos (Chaplain) on Sep 04, 2004 at 23:16 UTC
    You couldn't write safe code if your life depended on it.

    edit: now that the node is reaped this is taken out of context, my particular post should be reaped, as it was a post made out of frustration, and was in poor taste

    Considered: antirice Personal attack. PM exists due to an implicit belief that others can learn.
    Unconsidered: ysth enough keep votes - Keep/Edit/Delete: 10/1/27

      I just saw this "consideration" for the above node: "antirice Personal attack. PM exists due to an implicit belief that others can learn."

      I've argued my position and others have argued theirs regarding my code and security. The arguments of others are bogus, and comments like the above amount to libel. THAT'S why Grygonos's node should be reaped.

        About as libelous as the comment you just made in the CB Wassercrats.

          <Wassercrats> Rhys The majority of monks who vote aren't worth maggot spit.

        So since the evidence indicates that you and your more vocal detractors are operating at roughly the same level I see no reason why we shouldnt let the normal processes of consideration handle the node to which you were replying. Its funny you know but if you wore your nice hat more often you'd probably have sufficient XP that you could consider the node and maybe see it deleted. But since you revel in the attention your low XP garners you have lost that opportunity.

        Funny how things go eh?

        Actually on reconsidering if you wore your nice hat more often then you'd probably not have people saying stuff like this about you and IMO probably would be considered by a many an interesting if somewhat whacky contributor. As it is the consideration comment and community agreement with that comment says it all.


        ---
        demerphq

          First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
          -- Gandhi


Re: Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 1
by Wassercrats on Sep 05, 2004 at 05:09 UTC
    Perl::Improved will be no more. At least not on Perl Monks.
      Good riddance to bad rubbish

      Considered: davido 'delete': Cowardly posted inflamatory flamebait.
      Unconsidered: ysth enough keep votes - Keep/Edit/Delete: 5/1/23
      Unconsidered: davido enough keep votes for a second time - Keep/Edit/Delete: 7/2/31

        Amen. Good riddance to maggot spit
Re: Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 1
by theorbtwo (Prior) on Sep 05, 2004 at 11:44 UTC

    Your abs() critique raises points that I haven't seen raised around here before, at least in this purticular context... but it gets the conclusion wrong, by (I suspect conciously) only considering the point against the status quo -- that is, that there is a convention for writing the absolute value in mathematics, and that perl should follow that convention.

    This misses a whole slew of points in the other direction. The first, and probably most important, is that special cases are bad. There's a whole bunch of functions in perl, and there's no purticular reason that this purticular function should be written differently then the rest of them. It's simply not that important. There are functions that do have special syntax -- +, -, *, /, %, x, for example -- but those are generally more important -- indeed, even in math, they're normally called "operators", not "functions".

    Secondly, there's also a convention in other programming languages to use abs() as the absolute-value function.

    Thirdly, we already have uses for |, and important ones at that. It turns out they don't conflict as a matter of grammar, but they can easily conflict within the mind of the programmer.


    Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).

      I'm not convinced that the use of |...| to mean abs(...) doesn't break the existing grammar or introduces ugly whitespace dependency:

      1+|a+b|+c+d|+1
      can be naively parsed as
      1+abs(a+(b|+c)+d)+1
      or as
      1+abs(a+b)+c+(d|+1)

      because the ugly unary + is allowed, which breaks lots of things. Of course, introducing another slew of operator precedence could fix this, but I imagine it creates more confusion than the "clearer" syntax removes.

        Anything that prohibits the proper notation for abs, or makes things more complicated with it, shouldn't be in Perl.

        I couldn't find your use of "|" in Learning Perl. It looks like there are already at least three uses for "|" in perl, not counting "||". Everything except the proper mathematical use.

        You said: "...introducing another slew of operator precedence could fix this, but I imagine it creates more confusion than the "clearer" syntax removes."

        You're entitled to your imagination, but if I were Larry, I'd have looked into it. I don't know if anything should be changed now, but the proper notation should have been used from the start.

        Ah, thank you! My intuition told me that they conflicted, but I couldn't come up with a case -- largely because I forgot about unary +.

      I'd guess these points haven't been raised before because noone feels the need, and because most people instinctively understand that this particular proposition cannot possibly work.

      He'll be able to try this and any other outlandish ideas he thinks would make the language better for himself once Perl6 is here.

      Makeshifts last the longest.

        Next we'll need to have "Keyboard::Improved" to give us keys to represent other mathematical functions such as the integral symbol, the nth root symbol, longhand division symbols, Pi, Sigma, and so on. Seriously, if we're going to nitpick about abs() versus |-5|, we'll have to do away with the entire fn() idiom as applied to the programmers version of mathematical symbols.


        Dave

        I don't let my instincts tell me that something's impossible. Do you know how to use parentheses? They're accepted for use with abs(). Why not with (|...|)?
Re: Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 1
by Wassercrats on Sep 05, 2004 at 17:09 UTC
    Incase anyone wants some context for this discussion, you could see the reaped node by clicking here, or the "this" link above, where it says "For more information on this node visit: this."
Re: Perl::Improved Volume 0, Number 1
by ysth (Canon) on Sep 06, 2004 at 20:52 UTC
    The root node should not have been reaped. I don't think it qualified as "blatant trolls (egregiously offensive)" as required by What is consideration?.

    But there's much to criticize about it without even weighing the merit of the contents; it's composed of partially of Meditation-type material, partially of PMD, and partially off topic. If it had stuck to the first and those who replied had also (also applicable, perhaps even more so, to Volume 0 Number 0), it could have been a reasonably interesting discussion. The blame for this not happening lays with more than just Wassercrats.

      It sure wasn't a blatant troll; that's what makes Wassercrats so effective. And maybe if people could be trusted to stop responding to him (and I'm not saying this from the high horse; I caved a few times myself), then the root node could have stood. Judging from the way the previous installment went, that was less than expectable. Do you honestly believe that letting the same thread unfold again would have provided anything valuable for the archives?

      There is a time for everything. There is a time to be patient and to mentor, and a long time it is, and there is a time to make judgements.

      Makeshifts last the longest.

        Do you honestly believe that letting the same thread unfold again would have provided anything valuable for the archives?
        You didn't stop it by reaping. If that had any effect it was to encourage Wassercrats to leave the monestary; I would rather see a flood of trollish posts than have reaping used for that kind of purpose.
      “…has been a resounding success… there have been 91 replies”
      “…there have been a few detractors. They're dumb."

      Maybe not egregiously offensive, but it is blatantly trolling. His only concern is the number of responses his posts get, and he doesn’t care about the content of the responses or providing a meaningful reply to them.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: perlmeditation [id://388534]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others romping around the Monastery: (11)
As of 2014-07-29 09:48 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (213 votes), past polls