[15787] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 3200 Volume: 9
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Mon May 29 18:15:32 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 15:15:20 -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: <959638520-v9-i3200@ruby.oce.orst.edu>
Content-Type: text
Perl-Users Digest Mon, 29 May 2000 Volume: 9 Number: 3200
Today's topics:
Re: Waxing Philosophical <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <bkennedy@hmsonline.com>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <aqumsieh@hyperchip.com>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <Tbone@pimpdaddy.com>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <sue@pennine.com>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <Tbone@pimpdaddy.com>
Re: Waxing Philosophical (Craig Berry)
Re: Waxing Philosophical <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Re: Waxing Philosophical (Bart Lateur)
Re: Waxing Philosophical <aqumsieh@hyperchip.com>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <bkennedy@hmsonline.com>
Re: Waxing Philosophical <bkennedy@hmsonline.com>
Re: Webclient for autofilling html forms <gellyfish@gellyfish.com>
Re: Weird script behaviour called from a web page. <gellyfish@gellyfish.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 16 Sep 99) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 11:09:42 -0700
From: "Godzilla!" <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <3932B266.4E601618@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Dave Cross wrote:
> "Godzilla!" <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo> wrote:
> > Dave Cross wrote:
> 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."
If you people did not make it a routine
activity to troll and harass people trying
to enjoy this newsgroup, these problems
would not come about.
You people make a freewill choice to troll and
harass others. You are to blame. If you did not
choose to troll and harass people, those people
would not and could not object to your your
constant trolling and harassment.
This couple asking a simple question were most
certainly harassed by some here, some who know
better than to engage in sociopathic behavior.
Blame this on misunderstanding as you will, this
does change posted harassment of those two.
Stop trolling people. Stop harassing people.
Godzilla!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:48:04 GMT
From: "Ben Kennedy" <bkennedy@hmsonline.com>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <EXyY4.216003$Tn4.1940520@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
> No. You and others, besides harassing the originating
> authors, to which they objected, you and others addressed
> general concepts of 'while', 'unless' and 'until'.
There are no posts harassing the original authors, just two effective
responses and the one you offered
> You and others did not address their question pertaining
> to syntactical usage of,
>
> while ( conditional )
> unless (!( conditional ))
> until (!( conditional ))
you can't address the original question without taking into account that the
conditional is a read from a file handle. This changes everything - for
example, while(<HANDLE>) has special meaning that while($scalar) does not
have. There are important issues that the two effective responses mentioned
and that you failed to mention. It is important to realize that unless(!
conditional )) will only check the conditional once, and while and unless
can potentially check the conditional multiple times. While and unless can
be used for reading from a file handle (which is what the question pertained
to), the other is useless for reading from a file handle unless it contains
one line. Its not splitting hairs to point out that until is not the same
as unless, they are different things. To tell someone that they are the
same without mentioning the special file handle case (which you failed to
mention) is bad and dangerous advice. If you still maintain that they are
the same, then you have a lot to learn.
> 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.
No one harassed them, there were several polite and correct responses, and
your polite but incorrect one. Why can't you acknowledge it when you are
wrong?
--Ben Kennedy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:50:28 GMT
From: Ala Qumsieh <aqumsieh@hyperchip.com>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <7ag0r142do.fsf@Merlin.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>
Elaine Ashton <elaine@chaos.wustl.edu> writes:
> in article ai85js49vcfmfcfu45s7bp8l2kc3bdm6j3@4ax.com, Dave Cross at
> dave@dave.org.uk quoth:
...
> > 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.
It might be best if everybody tried to find the best solution and follow
it. For sure, though, it won't be an easy task, and if you want people
to stop what they're doing now, then you'd better come up with tangible
solutions first. Until then, however, I'm afraid there is no other
choice, except, perhaps, moderation, which we already have as
clp.moderated.
--Ala
------------------------------
Date: 29 May 2000 18:53:51 GMT
From: Intergalactic Denizen of Mystery <Tbone@pimpdaddy.com>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <8guebv$2298$1@news.enteract.com>
elaine@chaos.wustl.edu writes:
>I'm quite certain there are other methods of correcting without
>keeping the vicious circle alive.
Very good point. Please suppress your inner geek, folks; nothing
the hell is lost if you don't obsessively correct every tiny bit
of misinformation. Send private mail if you are really concerned.
------------------------------
Date: 29 May 2000 11:18:54 -0700
From: Sue Spence <sue@pennine.com>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <8gucae$atu@drn.newsguy.com>
In article <ai85js49vcfmfcfu45s7bp8l2kc3bdm6j3@4ax.com>, Dave says...
>
>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.
Amen.
>
>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.
No, we mustn't do anything of the sort!
>
>I _try_ to keep my comments to her technical points, but sometimes (as
>in the post that you quoted) it's very difficult :-(
>
>
So why not do what Alan Flavell suggested the other day? If you see that a troll
has given a blatantly incorrect answer, go back to the OP and provide your own
answer. Let the OP decide what s/he wants to do. Don't follow up to the troll
directly. All that does is allow the troll to create more hassle and an
appearence of dissent and turmoil which confuses onlookers.
------------------------------
Date: 29 May 2000 19:50:31 GMT
From: Intergalactic Denizen of Mystery <Tbone@pimpdaddy.com>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <8guhm7$2628$1@news.enteract.com>
aqumsieh@hyperchip.com writes:
>It might be best if everybody tried to find the best solution and follow
>it. For sure, though, it won't be an easy task, and if you want people
>to stop what they're doing now, then you'd better come up with tangible
>solutions first.
There are no "tangible" solutions; people need to stop responding, that's
all. "Correcting" a troll is as childish as the troll; playing ridiculous
head games ("you are not being coerced, it was just a suggestion") is even
more childish. Take it from someone who has logged years of childishness
on Usenet. Why are respectable posters doing it? Is their personal honour
at stake? Do they "represent" Perl?
How about following up like this to anyone who responds to a "troll", and
then completely shutting up. Someone could do it relentlessly enough to
cycle the neurons on the little contemptible punk:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You have responded to a known saboteur of the group.
Longstanding Usenet tradition dictates that such postings be avoided.
They accomplish nothing more than unnecessary and confusing traffic.
Please do not explain your posting by saying "but I saw seriously
wrong programming principles/code/strategy/philosophy". A group such
as this is quite capable of being immune to it.
Yours for a better usenet,
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 19:53:37 GMT
From: cberry@cinenet.net (Craig Berry)
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <sj5im13e5pj34@corp.supernews.com>
I (cberry@cinenet.net) wrote:
: Between the first two, there is a more subtle difference. In the
: pathological case of the final line of the file ending in a '0' with no
: newline, the symple boolean sense of a while() or until() test will go
: awry, ending the loop with data yet to be processed (that final hanging
: '0'. while() has magic that makes the test really be 'defined <>' when
: the argument is a single diamond operator; until() with a negated
: condition lacks this magic. Admittedly, it's a very minor and usually
: irrelevant difference.
Correcting myself:
As others have pointed out, the difference in magic is actually much
bigger; the until() form does not load the result of the read into $_.
--
| Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
--*-- http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
| "The road of Excess leads to the Palace
of Wisdom" - William Blake
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:04:00 -0700
From: "Godzilla!" <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <3932CD30.46F8620E@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Intergalactic Denizen of Mystery wrote:
>
> aqumsieh@hyperchip.com writes:
> > It might be best if everybody tried to find the best
> > solution and follow it. For sure, though, it won't be
> > an easy task, and if you want people to stop what
> > they're doing now, then you'd better come up with
> > tangible solutions first.
(snipped other thoughts)
I read no objection to the harassment the
originating authors of this thread suffered
at the hands of some here, evidenced by
posted harassment articles.
Why is this so?
Is this to silently suggest it is ok for
you people to harass others but it is not
ok for others to object to your harassment?
My experience is this notion of mine is
painfully true; you harass people and cast
blame on those very people you harass.
This couple orginating this thread very
clearly and specifically objected to being
harassed within this newsgroup. I object to
this constant harassment as well.
Godzilla!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 20:20:19 GMT
From: bart.lateur@skynet.be (Bart Lateur)
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <3932d0ca.652014@news.skynet.be>
Godzilla! wrote:
>while ( conditional )
>unless (!( conditional ))
>until (!( conditional ))
>...which only myself
>answered with correctness and politeness.
"unless" is essentially an "if". So you're saying that "if " and "while"
are the same thing... correct my ass.
--
Bart.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 20:34:25 GMT
From: Ala Qumsieh <aqumsieh@hyperchip.com>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <7aaeh93xkd.fsf@Merlin.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>
[I know I'll regret this]
"Godzilla!" <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo> writes:
> > aqumsieh@hyperchip.com writes:
> > > It might be best if everybody tried to find the best
> > > solution and follow it. For sure, though, it won't be
> > > an easy task, and if you want people to stop what
> > > they're doing now, then you'd better come up with
> > > tangible solutions first.
>
> (snipped other thoughts)
>
> I read no objection to the harassment the
> originating authors of this thread suffered
> at the hands of some here, evidenced by
> posted harassment articles.
>
> Why is this so?
Because I saw no evidence of harassment by anybody against the orignal
poster of this thread. My dictionary defines 'harass' as 'to annoy
continually'. I don't see any actions against the original poster that
fall under this category.
> Is this to silently suggest it is ok for
> you people to harass others but it is not
> ok for others to object to your harassment?
No. My post did not intend any such things. If you look at the context
of my post (which you have conveniently deleted), I was replying to
Elaine's request for the people to try a different approach. I simply
stated that we all have to work together to find a good solution, and,
until then, nothing much can be done to change people's behaviours.
> My experience is this notion of mine is
> painfully true; you harass people and cast
> blame on those very people you harass.
Again, I reiterate that no harassment has been done to the original
poster, and no blame has been cast on him/her. If you think otherwise,
then please point out the exact message to support your claims.
> This couple orginating this thread very
> clearly and specifically objected to being
> harassed within this newsgroup. I object to
> this constant harassment as well.
Please show us proof of your claims.
--Ala
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 13:39:49 -0700
From: "Godzilla!" <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <3932D595.FB2928F@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Bart Lateur wrote:
> Godzilla! wrote:
> >while ( conditional )
> >unless (!( conditional ))
> >until (!( conditional ))
> >...which only myself
> >answered with correctness and politeness.
> "unless" is essentially an "if". So you're saying
> that "if " and "while" are the same thing...
> correct my ass.
I did not say this. You did.
Original question pertains to syntactical
usage of,
while ( conditional )
unless (!( conditional ))
until (!( conditional ))
A question is presented is there any
difference between these three syntactic
usages. There is no difference. They all
yield precisely the same results as clearly
shown by both of my test scripts and
resulting data. This is factual evidence
anyone may test and replicate.
Others elected to not address this question
directly and within context. I elected to
answer this question directly within context
and provided factual data. No others did this.
As a result of my correctly answering this
question, directly within context, I have suffered
endless harassment and, the original posters
of this question, suffered harassment as well.
Godzilla!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 14:05:08 -0700
From: "Godzilla!" <godzilla@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <3932DB84.B167BA70@stomp.stomp.tokyo>
Ala Qumsieh wrote:
> [I know I'll regret this]
I am firm but fair Mr. Qumsieh.
> Again, I reiterate that no harassment has been done
> to the original poster, and no blame has been cast
> on him/her. If you think otherwise, then please point
> out the exact message to support your claims.
> Please show us proof of your claims.
The original posters of this thread
clearly and specifically objected to
"mistreatment" (is this more gentle?)
by others here. There is no proof more
valid than posted textual objection by
those suffering mistreatment or harassment.
Other proof includes immediate denial
of mistreatment by some of those who
perpetrated this mistreatment.
There are posted "mistreatment" articles
available for review, for those honest
enough to acknowledge mistreatment and,
in some cases, common rudeness.
This is allegedly a professional group.
I find this to be an ironic oxymoron.
Mistreatment or harassment is in clear
evidence, Mr. Qumsieh. It is up to each
individual to be open and honest on this.
Most choose to deny this notion, falsely,
and continue to mistreat and harass people
for whatever macabre pleasure this brings.
Most ironic, these abusive people blame
their own inappropriate activity on others.
Wasn't long back I posted a clear message
I will no longer tolerate harassment by
people here. I stick by my words, most
assertively and aggressively. It is with
great regret on my part, people force me
to take actions I truly would rather not.
Thank you for your thoughts, Mr. Qumsieh.
You are one of the few here I can honestly
say has never harassed me, never harassed
others and has always displayed courtesy
towards all. You are to be respected for
this display of gentle behavior.
Godzilla!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:25:47 GMT
From: "Ben Kennedy" <bkennedy@hmsonline.com>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <vfBY4.216079$Tn4.1942959@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
> I read no objection to the harassment the
> originating authors of this thread suffered
> at the hands of some here, evidenced by
> posted harassment articles.
uh, what are you talking about? the people who posted the initial question
never got harassed. I think you are misreading some posts.
> Is this to silently suggest it is ok for
> you people to harass others but it is not
> ok for others to object to your harassment?
> My experience is this notion of mine is
> painfully true; you harass people and cast
> blame on those very people you harass.
The only person that seems to get harassed is you. I object to the personal
insults you get, but I object stronger to the way you mislead people with
badly thought out advice.
> This couple orginating this thread very
> clearly and specifically objected to being
> harassed within this newsgroup. I object to
> this constant harassment as well.
ok, now I have no idea what you are talking about - perhaps my news feed is
behind, but people who ask questions in this group never get bothered, at
worst they are refered to a perldoc or FAQ. Why don't you quote where they
got harassed by someone in this newsgroup? You have to understand, people
only respond negatively to you because your code is so 'schizo' its only
appropriate for you. Most people don't want easy 'schizo' solutions, they
want solutions that use modern and advanced features of Perl, which you
don't seem to use. So please, stop posting code and people will stop
harassing you.
--Ben Kenendy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:59:26 GMT
From: "Ben Kennedy" <bkennedy@hmsonline.com>
Subject: Re: Waxing Philosophical
Message-Id: <2LBY4.216089$Tn4.1943465@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com>
> Original question pertains to syntactical
> usage of,
>
> while ( conditional )
> unless (!( conditional ))
> until (!( conditional ))
>
> A question is presented is there any
> difference between these three syntactic
> usages. There is no difference. They all
> yield precisely the same results as clearly
> shown by both of my test scripts and
> resulting data. This is factual evidence
> anyone may test and replicate.
You created an artificial situation that was not relavant to the initial
posting. Have you considered that your test script is invalid? The
original post asked about
while(<INFILE>) {
}
you absolutely cannot say that an example using
while($scalar) {
}
proves anything about the file handle case. Why? Because the former
example is functionally equivalent to:
while(defined($_ = <INFILE>)) {
}
this is not true with scalars. Its a perl magic thing.
> Others elected to not address this question
> directly and within context. I elected to
> answer this question directly within context
> and provided factual data. No others did this.
How did you answer the question within the original context? You in fact
changed to context from file handles to scalars. Your example should have
used file handles as well. Because you didn't, you got invalid results.
> As a result of my correctly answering this
> question, directly within context, I have suffered
> endless harassment and, the original posters
> of this question, suffered harassment as well.
correct? Are you telling me that the following code produces the same
thing? Suppose file_with_many_lines.txt is some file with multiple lines:
Sample 1:
open(IN,"file_with_many_lines.txt");
while(<IN>) {
print "I read a line\n";
}
Sample 2:
open(IN,"file_with_many_lines.txt");
unless(! <IN>) {
print "I read a line\n";
}
by claiming that all 3 cases are "Realistically, all the same", then you are
claiming that the output of the following 2 samples is the same since they
are using the exact same constructs as the original post. Why don't you try
it and find out. Do you realize that while() rechecks the condition after
executing the block, if it it remains true it try will reexecute the block?
The test you picked was essentially meaningless since it added an artificial
way for escaping the while() loop. Rerun you example without resetting the
value of $input , you'll find the first while() loops infinitely while the
unless() statement doesn't loop at all. You need to think your posts out a
little more.
--Ben Kennedy
------------------------------
Date: 29 May 2000 16:35:50 +0100
From: Jonathan Stowe <gellyfish@gellyfish.com>
Subject: Re: Webclient for autofilling html forms
Message-Id: <8gu2om$5ki$1@orpheus.gellyfish.com>
On 29 May 2000 12:05:31 GMT fredrik_eriksson@nai.com wrote:
>
> I'm trying to build a simple web client that autofills html forms so I
> can speed up my use of free SMS sites like www.mtnsms.com. Has anyone
> built something like that and could give me a hint?
In the first instance I would recommend getting a news client that does
proper line wrapping. Generally you will use the module LWP::UserAgent
to do this, there is a document lwpcook with the distribution of that
module that has examples of doing this kind of thing.
/J\
--
Please, please, kids, stop fighting. Maybe Lisa's right about America
being the land of opportunity, and maybe Adil's got a point about the
machinery of capitalism being oiled with the blood of the workers.
--
fortune oscar homer
------------------------------
Date: 29 May 2000 15:59:43 +0100
From: Jonathan Stowe <gellyfish@gellyfish.com>
Subject: Re: Weird script behaviour called from a web page.
Message-Id: <8gu0kv$ubr$1@orpheus.gellyfish.com>
On Mon, 29 May 2000 12:57:22 GMT Thaddeus L. Olczyk wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 03:32:13 GMT, sjs@yorku.ca (Steven Smolinski)
> wrote:
>
>>Thaddeus L. Olczyk <olczyk@interaccess.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 28 May 2000 16:31:06 +0100, Dave Cross <dave@dave.org.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Hope you don't think that I answered without thinking.
>>
>>> Yeah you did.
>>
>>Maybe you'd get informed answers if you posted more details, or
>>were less of a prick.
>>
> I keep hoping that it keeps the morons who think they're hotshot
> programmers after six months of programming away.
>
You dont know who you are talking about. The surest way I have of
keeping dick-heads away is by putting them in my killfile and I
congratulate you for having gained your own personal entry.
/J\
--
Well, crying isn't gonna bring him back...unless your tears smell like
dog food. So you can either sit there crying and eating can after can
of dog food until your tears smell enough like dog food to make your
dog come back or you can go out there and find your dog.
--
fortune oscar homer
------------------------------
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 3200
**************************************
