[15784] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 3197 Volume: 9
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Mon May 29 14:15:35 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 11:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Message-Id: <959624123-v9-i3197@ruby.oce.orst.edu>
Content-Type: text
Perl-Users Digest Mon, 29 May 2000 Volume: 9 Number: 3197
Today's topics:
Re: Waxing Philosophical <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <Tbone@pimpdaddy.com>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <dave@dave.org.uk>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <elaine@chaos.wustl.edu>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <dave@dave.org.uk>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <elaine@chaos.wustl.edu>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <bkennedy99@home.com>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <dave@dave.org.uk>
we need to hire Perl Specialist for a project- URGENT <mee@cardgirl.com>
Re: Weird script behaviour called from a web page. <gellyfish@gellyfish.com>
Re: What is the @INC ??? (Bart Lateur)
Re: Windows/Linux Incompatibility <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 16 Sep 99) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 07:16:37 -0700
From: "Godzilla!" <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <39327BC5.FA8C6EEF@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Ryan & Treena Carrier wrote:
> Thank you, those of you who chose to ignore my
> ignorance. I now have a better understanding of
> the differences. For those who chose not to
> (ignore my ignorance), I'm not a programming ace
> trying to be facetious. I am a (very) beginning
> Perl student. (self-taught, the worst kind!)
Perhaps you have discovered while working your
way around the Block of Life, there are ignorant
people and, there are stupid people.
We are all ignorant in many ways and usually strive
to learn and, in exchange for our efforts, defeat
many of our ignorances. Stupid people don't bother
with learning. Little learning takes place within
this newsgroup.
Godzilla!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 09:21:20 -0700
From: "Godzilla!" <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <39329900.F3869571@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Neil Kandalgaonkar wrote:
> > Ryan & Treena Carrier <ryanc@nci1.net> wrote:
> > Thank you, those of you who chose to ignore my ignorance.
> > I now have a better understanding of the differences.
> > For those who chose not to (ignore my ignorance),
(snip)
> I think you might have misunderstood -- the complaints of
> trolling and such were not directed at you, but at the
> poster who claimed the three code snippets had no important
> differences.
I believe you and others misunderstood. You and others
did not answer their question. You and others flew off
on tangents unrelated to their actual question.
You and others would benefit your readers better by
staying on topic and by answering questions directly
and to the point, as I did. You and others would also
benefit your readers better by avoiding accusing others
of being a troll as a result of her or his answering
questions with concise clarity and to the point. Making
false accusations against others, brands you a troll.
Godzilla!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 09:30:45 -0700
From: "Godzilla!" <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <39329B35.B288FC5E@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Thoren Johne wrote:
> Godzilla! <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo> wrote in message
(snipped harassment)
Why are you constantly trolling and
harassing me? I find no legitimate
reason for your constantly trolling
and harassing me in violation of our
USENET guidelines. It is clear all of
your articles you post only target me
for trolling and harassment. These are
the only type of articles you post;
troll and harassment articles targeting
myself specifically.
Godzilla!
------------------------------
Date: 29 May 2000 16:39:29 GMT
From: Intergalactic Denizen of Mystery <Tbone@pimpdaddy.com>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <8gu6g1$1ofl$1@news.enteract.com>
godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo writes:
>I believe you and ot
whine whine whine
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 17:41:28 +0100
From: Dave Cross <dave@dave.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <i075js8c46m8cjhso98iiqi6fgmnfs47eb@4ax.com>
On Mon, 29 May 2000 09:21:20 -0700, "Godzilla!"
<godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo> wrote:
>I believe you and others misunderstood. You and others
>did not answer their question. You and others flew off
>on tangents unrelated to their actual question.
I suspect that you're wrong on this and that _you_ misunderstood the
original question, not the other peoplewho responded. There's no need
to stay in thedark about this tho' as the origial poster is uniquely
able to clear up the confusion.
If the original poster is still following the thread, I wonder if
they'd be kind enough to let us know which replies answered their
question most accurately, Craig, Tad and Dan talking about the pecial
treatment of while (<FILE>) and pointing out the differences between
the three pieces of code or Godzilla who said that they were
"Realistically, all the same".
>You and others would benefit your readers better by
>staying on topic and by answering questions directly
>and to the point, as I did. You and others would also
>benefit your readers better by avoiding accusing others
>of being a troll as a result of her or his answering
>questions with concise clarity and to the point. Making
>false accusations against others, brands you a troll.
You would benefit your readers better by actually reading and learning
from some of the constructive criticism of your code that has been
posted here over the last few months.
hth,
Dave...
--
<http://www.dave.org.uk> SMS: sms@dave.org.uk
yapc::Europe - London, 22 - 24 Sep <http://www.yapc.org/Europe/>
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury [RIP]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 16:56:19 GMT
From: Elaine Ashton <elaine@chaos.wustl.edu>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <B5581972.4FE3%elaine@chaos.wustl.edu>
in article i075js8c46m8cjhso98iiqi6fgmnfs47eb@4ax.com, Dave Cross at
dave@dave.org.uk quoth:
> You would benefit your readers better by actually reading and learning
> from some of the constructive criticism of your code that has been
> posted here over the last few months.
Because he/she/it isn't making a point of teaching the passers by rather all
of you. There are some who this entity has become a large part of their
obsessive-compulsive daily activities. I really wish people could sit back
and take the clue...looking at the posts and begin to realise the multiple
posters and personalities playing off one another entertaining themselves.
This is no amateur and yet all of you keep coming back with the stick being
completely unable to discern blatant troll and having an irrepressible need
to correct them. You can't teach this dog tricks it already knows.
Pavlov has nothing on this person.
e.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:07:44 +0100
From: Dave Cross <dave@dave.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <ai85js49vcfmfcfu45s7bp8l2kc3bdm6j3@4ax.com>
On Mon, 29 May 2000 16:56:19 GMT, Elaine Ashton
<elaine@chaos.wustl.edu> wrote:
>in article i075js8c46m8cjhso98iiqi6fgmnfs47eb@4ax.com, Dave Cross at
>dave@dave.org.uk quoth:
>
>> You would benefit your readers better by actually reading and learning
>> from some of the constructive criticism of your code that has been
>> posted here over the last few months.
>
>Because he/she/it isn't making a point of teaching the passers by rather all
>of you. There are some who this entity has become a large part of their
>obsessive-compulsive daily activities. I really wish people could sit back
>and take the clue...looking at the posts and begin to realise the multiple
>posters and personalities playing off one another entertaining themselves.
>This is no amateur and yet all of you keep coming back with the stick being
>completely unable to discern blatant troll and having an irrepressible need
>to correct them. You can't teach this dog tricks it already knows.
You may well have a point there, she may simply be winding us up. A
couple of her posts recently have benn so ridiculously wrong that I'm
tending more to your view as time passes.
However, she _is_ posting bad Perl and encouraging people to copy and
use it. And I still see the occasional follow-up to her posts saying
"Thanks, I learnt a lot from that". Whilst that goes on, people _must_
challenge the technical content of her articles and try to persuade
others that she shouldn't be copied.
I _try_ to keep my comments to her technical points, but sometimes (as
in the post that you quoted) it's very difficult :-(
Dave...
--
<http://www.dave.org.uk> SMS: sms@dave.org.uk
yapc::Europe - London, 22 - 24 Sep <http://www.yapc.org/Europe/>
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury [RIP]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 17:14:33 GMT
From: Elaine Ashton <elaine@chaos.wustl.edu>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <B5581DB8.4FEB%elaine@chaos.wustl.edu>
in article ai85js49vcfmfcfu45s7bp8l2kc3bdm6j3@4ax.com, Dave Cross at
dave@dave.org.uk quoth:
> You may well have a point there, she may simply be winding us up. A
> couple of her posts recently have benn so ridiculously wrong that I'm
> tending more to your view as time passes.
It's so out there that it's starting to get funny again. It is as though
this is becoming a charicature.
> However, she _is_ posting bad Perl and encouraging people to copy and
> use it. And I still see the occasional follow-up to her posts saying
> "Thanks, I learnt a lot from that". Whilst that goes on, people _must_
> challenge the technical content of her articles and try to persuade
> others that she shouldn't be copied.
No doubt but it seems out of the realm of most to merely state the facts and
move on. I'm quite certain there are other methods of correcting without
keeping the vicious circle alive.
> I _try_ to keep my comments to her technical points, but sometimes (as
> in the post that you quoted) it's very difficult :-(
Indeed. As I said...Pavlov has nothing on this person.
e.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 17:24:36 GMT
From: "Ben Kennedy" <bkennedy99@home.com>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <oJxY4.215725$Tn4.1939235@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
> > while(<INFILE>) {
> > }
>
> > and
>
> > until(!<INFILE>) {
> > }
>
> > and
>
> > unless(!<INFILE>) {
> > }
>
> > Are they all the same?
>
>
> Realistically, all the same.
I think this would be a good point to take a moment of self-reflection and
try to realize that you don't know as much as you think you do.
> $input = "Imagination Is More Important Than Knowledge.";
>
> while($input)
>
> print "While: $input \n\n";
> $input = "";
> }
The behavior of a scalar is different from that from reading a file handle.
Your example fails to note that while(<HANDLE>) is essentialy equivalent to
while(defined($_ = <HANDLE>)) - You also neglect to mention the assignment
to $_ and check on defined(), which would allow the loop to process even if
incoming data was logically false. The assignment to a local $_ allows you
to process the data. These are very important issues.
> $input = "Imagination Is More Important Than Knowledge.";
>
> until(!($input))
>
> print "Until: $input \n\n";
> $input = "";
> }
once again, checking the value of a scalar is not the same as reading from a
file handle. Suppose reading from a file handle returns a string of
logically false data - the loop would terminate without processing it. The
magic behind while(<HANDLE>) is there for a reason. Plus, you have no real
way of reading the data since there is no assignment to $_.
> $input = "Imagination Is More Important Than Knowledge.";
>
> unless(!($input))
>
> print "Unless: $input \n\n";
> $input = "";
> }
An unless statement does not loop at all, therefore it is definitely *not*
interchangable with the other two. Since your examples terminate the loops
early, this major difference is not apparent. But to tell a newbie that
they are "realistically, all the same" is misleading and wrong. Yes, you
cooked up an example where all three things behave similarly, but they are
clearly quite different. Yes, your code works for you, there is no
guarantee it will work all the time. In case, using while until and unless
to check the value of a single scalar is completely different than using
those constructs to read information from a file handle. Applicable
examples and non-confused beginners are more important than imagination,
specifically your imagination.
Please take a moment to realistically examine your knowledge of perl. There
are posters here who have submitted modules to CPAN and are intimately
involved in the development of the language, and they tend to agree that
your help is confusing and unncessary. Although I think you honestly
believe you are helping people (your advice in this thread for example) why
don't you trust these qualified experts when they say you are not. The fact
that a bunch of really nice people who regularly post a lot of free advice
in this newsgroup get so hostile toward you says something.
--Ben Kennedy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 10:35:50 -0700
From: "Godzilla!" <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <3932AA76.7C0225D7@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Dave Cross wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 09:21:20 -0700, "Godzilla!"
> <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo> wrote:
> >I believe you and others misunderstood. You and others
> >did not answer their question. You and others flew off
> >on tangents unrelated to their actual question.
> I suspect that you're wrong on this and that _you_ misunderstood
> the original question, not the other peoplewho responded. There's
> no need to stay in thedark about this tho' as the origial poster
> is uniquely able to clear up the confusion.
No. You and others, besides harassing the originating
authors, to which they objected, you and others addressed
general concepts of 'while', 'unless' and 'until'.
You and others did not address their question pertaining
to syntactical usage of,
while ( conditional )
unless (!( conditional ))
until (!( conditional ))
Not only did you and others not address their question
directly and specifically, a few of you elected to harass
those two for asking a legit question, which only myself
answered with correctness and politeness.
Godzilla!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 10:54:45 -0700
From: "Godzilla!" <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <3932AEE5.7C84CD05@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Ben Kennedy wrote:
(snippage)
> Since your examples terminate the loops early....
Single line or multiline, works the same.
Loop or no loop, works the same. You have
not addressed their actual question. I have.
Address their actual question and your points
quickly become invalid under stated givens.
Stay within stated parameters or risk being
incorrect where, under different givens, you
would be correct.
Godzilla!
TEST SCRIPT
___________
#!/usr/local/bin/perl
print "Content-Type: text/plain\n\n";
$input = "
Puff The Magic Dragon Pensively
Pines So For Little Jackie Paper.
A Day Comes All Little Jackie Paper,
Stop Rolling Old Paper Making Puff";
while($input)
{
print "While: $input \n\n";
$input = "";
}
$input = "
Puff The Magic Dragon Pensively
Pines So For Little Jackie Paper.
A Day Comes All Little Jackie Paper,
Stop Rolling Old Paper Making Puff";
until(!($input))
{
print "Until: $input \n\n";
$input = "";
}
$input = "
Puff The Magic Dragon Pensively
Pines So For Little Jackie Paper.
A Day Comes All Little Jackie Paper,
Stop Rolling Old Paper Making Puff";
unless(!($input))
{
print "Unless: $input \n\n";
$input = "";
}
exit;
PRINTED RESULTS
_______________
While:
Puff The Magic Dragon Pensively
Pines So For Little Jackie Paper.
A Day Comes All Little Jackie Paper,
Stop Rolling Old Paper Making Puff
Until:
Puff The Magic Dragon Pensively
Pines So For Little Jackie Paper.
A Day Comes All Little Jackie Paper,
Stop Rolling Old Paper Making Puff
Unless:
Puff The Magic Dragon Pensively
Pines So For Little Jackie Paper.
A Day Comes All Little Jackie Paper,
Stop Rolling Old Paper Making Puff
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 19:00:02 +0100
From: Dave Cross <dave@dave.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <8ib5jscb55rcjsa9bkp3j4f4pq1m39dbts@4ax.com>
On Mon, 29 May 2000 10:35:50 -0700, "Godzilla!"
<godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo> wrote:
>Dave Cross wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 29 May 2000 09:21:20 -0700, "Godzilla!"
>> <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo> wrote:
>
>> >I believe you and others misunderstood. You and others
>> >did not answer their question. You and others flew off
>> >on tangents unrelated to their actual question.
>
>> I suspect that you're wrong on this and that _you_ misunderstood
>> the original question, not the other peoplewho responded. There's
>> no need to stay in thedark about this tho' as the origial poster
>> is uniquely able to clear up the confusion.
>
>No. You and others, besides harassing the originating
>authors, to which they objected, you and others addressed
>general concepts of 'while', 'unless' and 'until'.
I've just reread this whole thread and as far as I can see no-one
harassed the original poster. It seems to me that the OP mis-read the
line in brian's post saying
"stop spreading your ignorance."
as an attack on them, but it's quite clear to me (and has been pointed
out to the OP) that the comments were aimed at you not the OP.
If you think I've missed examples of harassment of the OP, please
point them out to me. Exact quotes from the posts please.
>You and others did not address their question pertaining
>to syntactical usage of,
>
>while ( conditional )
>unless (!( conditional ))
>until (!( conditional ))
Let's reread exactly what the OP asked:
What is the difference between
while(<INFILE>) {
}
and
until(!<INFILE>) {
}
and
unless(!<INFILE>) {
}
See that? All the examples are reading from filehandles. That's why
every response other than yours addressed the issues of filehandles.
Only you read that to mean that they were interested any random
condition that you made up.
But, as I said before, only the OP can truely tell us which of the
reponses they found the most useful.
Dave...
--
<http://www.dave.org.uk> SMS: sms@dave.org.uk
yapc::Europe - London, 22 - 24 Sep <http://www.yapc.org/Europe/>
"There ain't half been some clever bastards" - Ian Dury [RIP]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 14:30:22 GMT
From: "Bob Jones" <mee@cardgirl.com>
Subject: we need to hire Perl Specialist for a project- URGENT
Message-Id: <2avY4.6963$F22.293306@typhoon1.ba-dsg.net>
I am looking to hire a Perl specialist to update a greeting card Perl CGI
script. I need to add the ability to cc different addresses and to add
"send on a certain date." I have Perl scripts that do this, but I don't
have the technical skills to combine these different Perl scripts. If you
are able (and have the time) to do this, please contact me and we can
discuss the details including price. My e-mail is mee@cardgirl.com .
Thanks a lot. (Our Web Site is www.cardgirl.com)
Thank you,
Bob Jones
------------------------------
Date: 29 May 2000 13:23:25 +0100
From: Jonathan Stowe <gellyfish@gellyfish.com>
Subject: Re: Weird script behaviour called from a web page.
Message-Id: <8gtnft$cv$1@orpheus.gellyfish.com>
On Sun, 28 May 2000 11:51:38 GMT Thaddeus L. Olczyk wrote:
> System: Linux (Mandrake 7.0)
> Server:Apache
> Problem: I've got two scripts in a directory running similar programs
> which are called from a web page.
> The first one works perfectly.
> The second one doesn't.
> The error messages I get all indicate that for some reason the second
> one can't be found and opened.
> They have the same owner and permissions.
> When I try to execute both from command-line they run ( with limited
> functionality ). But when I type ./script1.pl or fullpath/script1.pl
> it runs. When I type ./script2.pl or fullpath/script2.pl the system
> says it can't find the file. So I create a wrap script.
>
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> system 'perl fullscript2name',@args
>
>
> I call this wrap script and script2 runs.
> I the system call to: system 'fullscript2name',@args
> and it does not run.
> Change it to: system 'perl ./script2.pl',@args and it runs
> change it to: system './script2.pl',@args and it does not run.
>
> I've cut and paste the first line from script1 to script2.
> I've changed the name of script2. Those don't help.
> At this point I give up.
> Can anyone help?
>
> PS: Remember, an explanation must explain why script2 doesn't run
> and why script1 does. An explanation that is something like
> 'the permissions on the directory are wrong' fails to take into
> account that script1 runs from the same directory. Sorry to be pushy
> but frankly I'm getting tired of the large number of people who answer
> without thinking.
>
Frankly I'm tired of people who think that this newsgroup owes them a
living. I think you ought to look at what is *after* the path to perl
in your shebang line - you most probably have some crap there that might
not be visible in the editor you are using.
I dont need to think about the answer because I know that if the permissions
on the file are correct and you get something like :
[gellyfish@orpheus clpmtest]$ ./badsheb.pl
bash: ./badsheb.pl: No such file or directory
Then there *must* be something wrong with your shebang line.
/J\
--
If something goes wrong at the plant, blame the guy who can't speak
English.
--
fortune oscar homer
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 17:49:45 GMT
From: bart.lateur@skynet.be (Bart Lateur)
Subject: Re: What is the @INC ???
Message-Id: <3932acf4.227279@news.skynet.be>
Martin C Dore (LMC) wrote:
>Many times I read, or have this message....So what is @INC.....
It's an array containing all root directories to search for library
files.
For example, if you @INC contains "/perl/lib" and "/perl/site_perl/lib",
and you ask for (use) Foo::Bar, then the file will be searched as
"/perl/lib/Foo/Bar.pm" first, and if not found, as
"/perl/site_perl/lib/Foo.Bar.pm". If none of the root paths in @INC
works, you'll get and error message.
--
Bart.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 11:18:35 -0400
From: Bernie Cosell <bernie@fantasyfarm.com>
Subject: Re: Windows/Linux Incompatibility
Message-Id: <9b25jscniaacmfj1ie9rav9ot645u45k96@news.supernews.com>
nospam.newton@gmx.li (Philip 'Yes, that's my address' Newton) wrote:
} On Sun, 21 May 2000 23:50:50 -0400, "Brian Landers"
} <brian@bluecoat93.org> wrote:
}
} >You might try stripping control-M characters as you read the prefs file.
} >Windows files have different end-of-line markers than UNIX files. This could
} >be causing problems. I don't believe chomp() will strip both the control-M
} >and the \n.
}
} It will if you set $/ properly -- to "\cM\cJ" in this case. (Or
} "\015\012" or "\r\n".)
}
} However, note that it doesn't do regexes -- if some lines end in \r\n
} and some in \n, you can't set $/ to "\r?\n".
And as a heads-up to folk working over the internet, note that if you have
an internet connection open [e.g., reading from a telnet session or reading
from and HTTP session] you might run into trouble, because the 'lines' that
come in via that source might not be using teh same EOL convention as the
system you're on [and so you might discover that you need either to keep
switching $/ back and forth, or else write your own version of 'chomp'.
[it'd seem that it was a common enough situation that I'm almost surprised
that chomp hasn' had the equivalent of "\r?\n" hacked into it!, which'd
make most all of these sorts of problems pretty much go away].
[ps, yes, I know you can write your own version of 'chomp' that does
precisely that... but I assume that chomp has been ruthlessly optimized
and I'd guess that a brute-force match [something like "s/\r?\n$//" or the
like] would be noticeably slow]
/bernie\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--
------------------------------
Date: 16 Sep 99 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 16 Sep 99)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
the single line:
subscribe perl-users
or:
unsubscribe perl-users
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
| NOTE: The mail to news gateway, and thus the ability to submit articles
| through this service to the newsgroup, has been removed. I do not have
| time to individually vet each article to make sure that someone isn't
| abusing the service, and I no longer have any desire to waste my time
| dealing with the campus admins when some fool complains to them about an
| article that has come through the gateway instead of complaining
| to the source.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V9 Issue 3197
**************************************
