[28241] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 9605 Volume: 10
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Mon Aug 14 21:05:40 2006
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Mon, 14 Aug 2006 Volume: 10 Number: 9605
Today's topics:
Re: [VOTE] Publicly flog David Filmer for writing multi <tintin@invalid.invalid>
Accessing a container objects state from aggregated obj <dbasch@yahoo.com>
Re: current directory name in perl <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Re: LWP::UserAgent question--MULTIPOSTED <DJStunks@gmail.com>
Re: LWP::UserAgent question--MULTIPOSTED usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Re: LWP::UserAgent question--MULTIPOSTED <john@castleamber.com>
Re: LWP::UserAgent question--MULTIPOSTED <DJStunks@gmail.com>
My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer) usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer) usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer) <john@castleamber.com>
Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer) usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer) <john@castleamber.com>
Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer) usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer) <sherm@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local>
Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer) <john@castleamber.com>
Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer) <not-for-replies@zombie.org.uk>
Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer) usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer) usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer) <mgarrish@gmail.com>
Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer) <sherm@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local>
Re: PerlDoc used in CPAN?--MULTIPOSTED usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Re: Publicly flog David Filmer for writing multi-post f usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Re: system command won't let go <nobull67@gmail.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:57:22 +1200
From: "Tintin" <tintin@invalid.invalid>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Publicly flog David Filmer for writing multi-post flagging 'bot
Message-Id: <44e0f29f$0$11781$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>
"Mumia W." <mumia.w.18.spam+nospam.usenet@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:793Eg.5010$Qf.2216@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> VOTE:
>
> Publicly flog David Filmer for writing multi-post flagging 'bot:
>
> Yea
>
Naturally, I hope you have multi-posted this to a whole bunch of other
groups.
I vote a big NO! Multi-posting really pisses me off, so anything that
alerts to to a multi-posted message is a good idea.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 2006 17:50:03 -0700
From: "Derek Basch" <dbasch@yahoo.com>
Subject: Accessing a container objects state from aggregated objects
Message-Id: <1155603003.835891.207340@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
Hello all,
I am trying to do class aggregation properly in perl. I was wondering
what the best practices for accessing a container objects state from
the aggregated objects is.
For instance this is what I came up with:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
use strict;
use warnings;
package Member_dev;
use Membership_dev;
sub new {
my $class = shift;
my $member_identifier = shift;
my $self = {
'address' => "yo momma's house"
};
bless ($self, $class);
$self->{'membership_dev'} = Membership_dev->new($self);
return $self;
}
package Membership_dev;
sub new {
my $class = shift;
my $self = {
'member' => shift
};
bless ($self, $class);
return $self;
}
sub suspend {
my $self = shift;
print "Address $self->{'member'}->{'address'} is suspended!";
}
package main;
my $member = Member_dev->new();
$member->{'membership_dev'}->suspend();
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see I am passing the member object reference to the
aggregated membership object. Then I can access the container objects
state information from the aggregated object. Is this a good idea? Is
there a better way to do this?
Thanks for the help,
Derek Basch
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:27:35 GMT
From: "Jürgen Exner" <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: current directory name in perl
Message-Id: <Xx8Eg.7559$Z1.6422@trnddc03>
[Do not top-post/fullquote; trying to fix]
dennishancy@eaton.com wrote:
> dennishancy@eaton.com wrote:
>> Is there a function in perl that will tell me the directory name of
>> the currently running script?
>
> I have the value "c:\someDirName\scriptName.pl" stored in a variable.
Now what the heck are you asking for?
1: A function that returns the current working directory?
2: A function that returns the path for script?
3: The path part from an absolute file name?
Your 'description' could be asking for any of these.
1: perldoc CWD
2: perldoc FindBin
3: perldoc File::Basename
jue
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 2006 15:09:35 -0700
From: "DJ Stunks" <DJStunks@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: LWP::UserAgent question--MULTIPOSTED
Message-Id: <1155593375.925485.172730@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
DJ Stunks wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
> > "DJ Stunks" <DJStunks@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > And how many replies have you had on this subject? And on the Xah Lee
> > > subject (no, I wasn't joking)
> >
> > They are far from the 600+ replies Xah seems to attract after a single
> > cross post to 5 groups.
>
> wait, (I'm so confused). It's ok to reply as long as you're not the
> 600th?
oh, hang on, I get it now. I should have been able to see this sooner:
it's only ok to reply so long as your initials are John Bokma.
my bad.
-jp
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 2006 15:41:52 -0700
From: usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Subject: Re: LWP::UserAgent question--MULTIPOSTED
Message-Id: <1155595312.620922.199580@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
I have opened a new thread in CLPMisc to consolidate continued
discussion on the multipost bot: http://tinyurl.com/nkg7y (this
discussion is clearly OT to this original post).
If you wish to reply regarding this topic, I respectfully ask that you
do so in the new thread (and quote context so folks can follow along).
--
David Filmer (http://DavidFilmer.com)
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 2006 22:43:17 GMT
From: John Bokma <john@castleamber.com>
Subject: Re: LWP::UserAgent question--MULTIPOSTED
Message-Id: <Xns981FB443AC98castleamber@130.133.1.4>
"DJ Stunks" <DJStunks@gmail.com> wrote:
> my bad.
Glad you discovered it finally.
--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 2006 16:14:45 -0700
From: "DJ Stunks" <DJStunks@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: LWP::UserAgent question--MULTIPOSTED
Message-Id: <1155597285.510611.48490@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
John Bokma wrote:
> "DJ Stunks" <DJStunks@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > my bad.
>
> Glad you discovered it finally.
uhhh, ok, based on this evidence could everyone please cross "super
educated" off on your lists?
for those of you keeping track, "thug" is now the frontrunner.
-jp
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 2006 15:28:56 -0700
From: usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Subject: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer)
Message-Id: <1155594535.508736.153870@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>
(Note: This message is crossposted to the following newsgroups, as
these groups are affected by the subject bot: comp.lang.perl.misc,
perl.beginners, comp.lang.perl.modules, perl.dbi.users,
perl.beginners.cgi, alt.perl)
Greetings. As many of you are doubtless aware, I recently wrote and
deployed a usenet 'bot which identifies multiposted messages. After
manually flagging such messages for some time, it occurred to me that I
could let Perl do the work for me, and laziness took over.
FIRST OF ALL, I would like to apologize to the usenet community for
having done this unilaterally. I had genuinely not anticipated that
many folks would object or even care about this - it was a very minor
project for me to save me a bit of trouble now and then. I now know
that I should have posted an RFC before deploying my bot, and I would
have done so had I realized the level of interest it would generate.
If I've angered or annoyed anyone, I do apologize. I had no such
intent.
This topic is presently being discussed in a number of threads:
http://tinyurl.com/rdedx, http://tinyurl.com/m2e2r, and
http://tinyurl.com/oubbn (and possibly others), and the topic is
certainly OT to the first two threads (and the third thread is postured
as an attack article). Multiple threads are an ineffective way to
discuss a topic, and I hope that by opening this thread, I can
consolidate (rather than contribute) to the mess. I don't want to
re-hash these threads here; I hope interested folks will read those
messages but continue the discussions here (with good quoting, of
course, so others will be able to follow along).
I have read comments from many respected posters which were both
supportive and critical of my bot. In both cases, however, there was
often a strong sentiment that the bot message was too long and too
harsh.
I had a lot of temporary introductory text in the first couple of
messages that was never intended to be part of the regular bot
messages. That, however, was a mistake (as it led folks to believe that
I really intended to post such a long reply to every multipost). I
should have posted the messages without that additional explanatory
verbiage and perhaps included that additional information in a reply.
HOWEVER, reading many comments has led me to believe that it may not be
a good idea to include very much more than a very basic reply and a
link for more info. I argued against this idea (because I thought the
reply would not be very effective, as novice OPs don't often appear
to follow links) but I have reconsidered my opinion (due to what seems
to be a rough consensus, and because I realize the various strengths of
the other position).
I will therefore modify the bot to something per the suggestions that
John & Sinan made in http://tinyurl.com/oubbn. I have also changed the
bot's handle to my personally-named domain (so it's not anonymous).
It's a different handle than I'm posting under now (for folks who
may wish to killfile the bot but not killfile me). Those who have
already killfiled the bot will need to do so again (sorry) - you may
killfile me@davidfilmer.net if you wish to killfile the bot.
Opinions have been expressed in roughly four categories:
1 - The whole idea of a bot sucks
2 - The idea is OK, but the implementation (auto-message) sucks
3 - Rock on
4 - Indifference (posted messages without expressing an opinion)
So far, most opinion seems to fall in the second or third category
(though opinions of the first category have been somewhat more vocal).
I believe I have taken measures to address many of the concerns of the
second category. As the discussion develops, if it seems the group
consensus does generally oppose the idea, I have no problem with
shutting it down and I will readily do so.
--
David Filmer (http://DavidFilmer.com)
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 2006 15:34:48 -0700
From: usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Subject: Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer)
Message-Id: <1155594888.389116.189210@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
use...@DavidFilmer.com wrote:
> (Note: This message is crossposted to the following newsgroups
Hmmm. I'm posting from GoogleGroups (it's all I have access to at the
moment). Apparently GG must have some sort of crosspost limitation,
because the message didn't go to the comma-separated list that I
provided. Grrr - darn Google Groups.
Well, this is really the group whose members' opinions I respect the
most... so maybe it's for the best anyway.
--
David Filmer (http://DavidFilmer.com)
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 2006 22:47:59 GMT
From: John Bokma <john@castleamber.com>
Subject: Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer)
Message-Id: <Xns981FB50F9E93castleamber@130.133.1.4>
usenet@DavidFilmer.com wrote:
> use...@DavidFilmer.com wrote:
>> (Note: This message is crossposted to the following newsgroups
>
> Hmmm. I'm posting from GoogleGroups (it's all I have access to at the
> moment). Apparently GG must have some sort of crosspost limitation,
> because the message didn't go to the comma-separated list that I
> provided. Grrr - darn Google Groups.
You didn't set a follow up to, so I am quite thankfull that the cross
failed.
Probably my last remark regarding this bot, personally I think a CfV
should be held. For example at least 50 votes, and the majority must vote
yes for this project to continue. Which is better then guessing where
opinions fall.
--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 2006 16:02:18 -0700
From: usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Subject: Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer)
Message-Id: <1155596538.673956.111530@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
John Bokma wrote:
> You didn't set a follow up to,
Ha - as if you can set a follow-up in GG... If there's a way to do
that, I don't know what it is. You just list your groups and hope GG
figures it out.
> Probably my last remark regarding this bot, personally
> I think a CfV should be held.
If I could trouble you for one more thing... Is there a
generally-accepted procedure for issuing (or voting in) such a call?
I've heard of this, but I don't actually believe I've ever seen it
done. I could envision such a call becoming (yet) another discussion.
I think a CfV is a good idea (but don't know how it should be handled).
I would feel better about continuing or canning the bot if I had a firm
idea of what the consensus is.
BTW, I would like to thank you... you were obviously very peeved at me,
but you were kind enough to provide helpful and constructive input when
I asked you for it.
--
David Filmer (http://DavidFilmer.com)
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 2006 23:17:07 GMT
From: John Bokma <john@castleamber.com>
Subject: Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer)
Message-Id: <Xns981FBA00459D3castleamber@130.133.1.4>
usenet@DavidFilmer.com wrote:
> John Bokma wrote:
>
>> You didn't set a follow up to,
>
> Ha - as if you can set a follow-up in GG... If there's a way to do
> that, I don't know what it is. You just list your groups and hope GG
> figures it out.
>
>> Probably my last remark regarding this bot, personally
>> I think a CfV should be held.
>
> If I could trouble you for one more thing... Is there a
> generally-accepted procedure for issuing (or voting in) such a call?
> I've heard of this, but I don't actually believe I've ever seen it
> done. I could envision such a call becoming (yet) another discussion.
Technically (and IIRC) there should be first an RFD which contains the
proposal for such a bot, what it should and shouldn't do, what to use
for "From" etc.
Once such a discussion ends the starter of the RFD could create a
summary and post a second RFD.
If nothing new comes out of that one, a Call for Votes can take place.
Normally a CfV will not cause new discussions.
My experiece with RFDs and CFVs is limited to the creation of new groups
in the nl.* hierarchy. IIRC the 50 votes, and majority must be Y comes
from my memories of the documents I once read on the topic.
Did some googling:
<http://users.tkk.fi/~jpatokal/uvv/vote-faq.html>
<http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/>
Not sure if the UVV wants to handle this vote.
> I think a CfV is a good idea (but don't know how it should be
> handled). I would feel better about continuing or canning the bot if I
> had a firm idea of what the consensus is.
>
> BTW, I would like to thank you... you were obviously very peeved at
> me, but you were kind enough to provide helpful and constructive input
> when I asked you for it.
Yes, I am well known for overreacting, I guess what triggered me the
most was that there was no contact info associated with the bot (it ran
anonymously), and the message was way too lengthy.
I still disagree with the whole idea, but have a few tips:
Remove all whitespace before you calculate the MD5SUM, this way you
might find posts that have been made by copy + paste and have additional
trailing/leading whitespace.
Make sure that the bot posts with a From that is easy to recognize.
Make sure that you provide a contact email address.
Only post a reply if there hasn't been made one yet.
Especially regarding the latter, due to how Usenet works your bot might
post the 2nd, 3rd or even more reply to a multipost.
Also, some people who multipost understand the issue, and cancel the
wrong post. Cancels always run after the facts. What you really want to
avoid is having your bot reply to a message that has been canceled a few
seconds earlier.
--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 2006 16:50:24 -0700
From: usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Subject: Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer)
Message-Id: <1155599424.525710.147750@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
usenet@DavidFilmer.com wrote:
Anyone who wishes to view a sample of the much shorter (and more
gentle) message text may visit alt.test.test or see:
http://tinyurl.com/qvvqh
--
David Filmer (http://DavidFilmer.com)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:58:26 -0400
From: Sherm Pendley <sherm@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local>
Subject: Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer)
Message-Id: <m2k65adg4d.fsf@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local>
usenet@DavidFilmer.com writes:
> Opinions have been expressed in roughly four categories:
> 1 - The whole idea of a bot sucks
> 2 - The idea is OK, but the implementation (auto-message) sucks
> 3 - Rock on
> 4 - Indifference (posted messages without expressing an opinion)
>
> So far, most opinion seems to fall in the second or third category
> (though opinions of the first category have been somewhat more vocal).
My opinion of the bot itself is somewhat indifferent. I don't see a need
for it and I don't believe it will significantly reduce the "problem" -
which I don't see as such - of multi-posting.
On the other hand, I dislike the way the message chastises anyone who's
thinking of replying to a multi-posted message, and attempts to "burn the
thread" by encouraging others to ignore it. Not everyone agrees with your
idea that a multi-posted message should receive no reply other than "please
don't multi-post".
For myself, I'd prefer to answer the posted question, and include a comment
in the answer about multi-posting, netiquette, and the group guidelines. If
constructive criticism of that sort is given *along with* an answer to the
posted question, it's more likely to be taken seriously. If it's given on
its own, the receiver is (IMO) more likely to dismiss the sender as a crank
and ignore the advice.
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
------------------------------
Date: 15 Aug 2006 00:01:10 GMT
From: John Bokma <john@castleamber.com>
Subject: Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer)
Message-Id: <Xns981FC177AD771castleamber@130.133.1.4>
usenet@DavidFilmer.com wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/qvvqh
I probably would word it as follows:
You have posted the same message to several news groups in a form that
is called multiposting:
group1
<news:3oSdnVLzrpxMl3zZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com>
group2
<news:3oSdnU3zrpxMl3zZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com>
Multiposting is generally considered impolite. For an
explanation, please see:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html
which also explains crossposting, which is the recommended way to post
a single message to more then one group, if such is really needed.
(I left out Usenet, because most people consider Usenet "Google").
--
John Bokma Freelance software developer
&
Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:04:47 GMT
From: Brian Greenfield <not-for-replies@zombie.org.uk>
Subject: Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer)
Message-Id: <jj32e21phoq34pi0hgpsbjutfp71jrsntg@4ax.com>
On 14 Aug 2006 15:28:56 -0700, usenet@DavidFilmer.com wrote:
>If I've angered or annoyed anyone, I do apologize. I had no such
>intent.
As a long time lurker,and very occasional poster to clpm, I do find
your bot to be both angering and annoying, Please stop. Now.
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 2006 17:14:19 -0700
From: usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Subject: Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer)
Message-Id: <1155600859.593661.14030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
John Bokma wrote:
> Did some googling:
> <http://users.tkk.fi/~jpatokal/uvv/vote-faq.html>
> <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/>
Thanks. I'll read up. Does anyone know: Has this group ever conducted
such a vote (such as for the Posting Guidelines, etc?) or is stuff like
that done by an informal consensus?
> I still disagree with the whole idea, but have a few tips:
>
> Remove all whitespace before you calculate the MD5SUM, this way you
> might find posts that have been made by copy + paste and have additional
> trailing/leading whitespace.
Actually, the script has always:
$body =~ s/\W//g;
(I have observed several multiposts with extra leading spaces, and even
trailing ...'s)
> Make sure that the bot posts with a From that is easy to recognize.
That has now been done (see alt.test.testing or
http://tinyurl.com/qvvqh for an example of the new-and-improved
cop-bot).
> Make sure that you provide a contact email address.
That has also been done. It's my catch-all domain - I'll probably
spam-safe it like I do with usenet@davidfilmer.com (which is a
blackhole with an informative autoresponder)
> Only post a reply if there hasn't been made one yet.
That's probably a good idea (although it's not uncommon for manual
flagging to be done subsequent to other replies). Making such a change,
however, would require some significant changes to the flow of the
program...
> Also, some people who multipost understand the issue, and cancel the
> wrong post. Cancels always run after the facts. What you really want to
> avoid is having your bot reply to a message that has been canceled a few
> seconds earlier.
I agree that would be an undesirable situation (though generally
unlikely, IMHO), but I'm not sure how to avoid it. Even posting
manually, I believe it's possible something like this could happen.
I'm pretty sure I've replied (manually) to posts that got pulled out
from under my feet, and only my reply remained (one such post, if I
recall, was in German, but I answered it anyway only to find the
original was gone - probably in favor of a .de group). I don't know if
it's possible to avoid this situation programmatically any more than it
is manually (but I'm open to ideas!)
--
David Filmer (http://DavidFilmer.com)
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 2006 17:17:36 -0700
From: usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Subject: Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer)
Message-Id: <1155601056.047023.172520@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
Sherm Pendley wrote:
> On the other hand, I dislike the way the message chastises anyone who's
> thinking of replying to a multi-posted message, and attempts to "burn the
> thread" by encouraging others to ignore it.
I've modified the bot (which addresses your perfectly valid
objections); you may find the new version more acceptable. See recent
messages in alt.test.test or http://tinyurl.com/qvvqh
--
David Filmer (http://DavidFilmer.com)
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 2006 17:27:19 -0700
From: "Matt Garrish" <mgarrish@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer)
Message-Id: <1155601639.405281.327530@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
usenet@DavidFilmer.com wrote:
> Sherm Pendley wrote:
> > On the other hand, I dislike the way the message chastises anyone who's
> > thinking of replying to a multi-posted message, and attempts to "burn the
> > thread" by encouraging others to ignore it.
>
> I've modified the bot (which addresses your perfectly valid
> objections); you may find the new version more acceptable. See recent
> messages in alt.test.test or http://tinyurl.com/qvvqh
>
Any chance of posting the group names along with the ids to simplify
lookups? For example:
This message has been multiposted as indicated by these message IDs:
alt.test.test : <news:3oSdnVLzrpxMl3zZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com>
Other than that the simplified message is drastic improvement.
Matt
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:40:27 -0400
From: Sherm Pendley <sherm@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local>
Subject: Re: My multipost-detecting usenet bot (David Filmer)
Message-Id: <m2bqqmde6c.fsf@Sherm-Pendleys-Computer.local>
usenet@DavidFilmer.com writes:
> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>> On the other hand, I dislike the way the message chastises anyone who's
>> thinking of replying to a multi-posted message, and attempts to "burn the
>> thread" by encouraging others to ignore it.
>
> I've modified the bot (which addresses your perfectly valid
> objections); you may find the new version more acceptable. See recent
> messages in alt.test.test or http://tinyurl.com/qvvqh
Thanks - that's much better. It's concise and much less incendiary.
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 2006 15:42:03 -0700
From: usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Subject: Re: PerlDoc used in CPAN?--MULTIPOSTED
Message-Id: <1155595323.005698.124760@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
I have opened a new thread in CLPMisc to consolidate continued
discussion on the multipost bot: http://tinyurl.com/nkg7y (this
discussion is clearly OT to the original post).
If you wish to reply regarding this topic, I respectfully ask that you
do so in the new thread (and quote context so folks can follow along).
--
David Filmer (http://DavidFilmer.com)
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 2006 15:41:45 -0700
From: usenet@DavidFilmer.com
Subject: Re: Publicly flog David Filmer for writing multi-post flagging 'bot
Message-Id: <1155595305.515229.33320@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
I have opened a new thread in CLPMisc to consolidate continued
discussion on the multipost bot: http://tinyurl.com/nkg7y
If you wish to reply regarding this topic, I respectfully ask that you
do so in the new thread (and quote context so folks can follow along).
Unless you just want to flog me (:^|)
--
David Filmer (http://DavidFilmer.com)
------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 2006 16:55:10 -0700
From: "Brian McCauley" <nobull67@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: system command won't let go
Message-Id: <1155599710.112882.173910@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
rallabs@adelphia.net wrote:
> Tad McClellan wrote:
> > rallabs@adelphia.net <rallabs@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> > Then redirect the program's STDOUT:
> >
> > system "~/runsgood.exe >/dev/null <point.$newID";
>
> Thanks very much. This does stop the STDOUT output from 'runsgood.exe'
> from appearing on the screen. The script also then goes on to run the
> last line of my script. Running the process in the background also
> accomplishes this. I guess there really is "more than one way to do
> it"
Yes, but some are conceptually flawed even if they happen to work.
You don't want A to happen _before_ B.
(A is the output of the ~/runsgood.exe being sent to the web server
process. B is the redirect header being sent to the web server
process).
You can try the following
1. Prevent A happening (what Tad and I suggest)
2. Cause B to happen and then cause A to happen.
3. Cause A and B to happen in paralell and rely on the fact that A
takes longer so its effect is seen after B.
Option 3, your "Running the process in the background" option works,
but any solution based on a race condtion is conceptually flawed.
> Don't ask me where the STDOUT goes to when I run 'system' in the
> background.
I won't ask you, I'll tell you. It goes into the HTTP response body
because it arrives at the web server process after the headers.
Solution 2, generating the redirect header and then running
~/runsgood.exe without bothering to redirect the output would give the
same result as option 3 without the race condition.
Since you don't actually _want_ A to happen at all then solution 1 has
to be the best.
------------------------------
Date: 6 Apr 2001 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Users-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01)
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: due to the current flood of worm email banging on ruby, the smtp
server on ruby has been shut off until further notice.
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 V10 Issue 9605
***************************************
