[29102] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 346 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Mon Apr 16 06:14:12 2007
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 03:14:05 -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, 16 Apr 2007 Volume: 11 Number: 346
Today's topics:
Re: Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007) <purlgurl@purlgurl.net>
Re: Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007) cartercc@gmail.com
Re: Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007) <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Re: Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007) <abigail@abigail.be>
Re: Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007) <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Re: Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007) <bik.mido@tiscalinet.it>
Re: Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007) <bik.mido@tiscalinet.it>
Re: Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007) <bik.mido@tiscalinet.it>
why must you compile C with embeded perl the same way? <anerbenartzi@gmail.com>
Re: why must you compile C with embeded perl the same w <joe@inwap.com>
Re: why must you compile C with embeded perl the same w <spamtrap@dot-app.org>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 18:10:15 -0700
From: Purl Gurl <purlgurl@purlgurl.net>
Subject: Re: Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007)
Message-Id: <UtadnSbLRuBhUb_bnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@giganews.com>
Vincent Vercauteren wrote:
> perl-2007 wrote:
(snipped)
>> Most contributors to comp.lang.perl.misc are helpful and share good
>> information. Unfortunately there are a few individuals who are
>> frequently rude and abusive. For their bad behavior they are hereby
>> named the Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc for 2007.
> I've been reading along in this group for about 2 years now. Meanwhile,
> But I've never dared to post any question on this group yet, fearing
> that the slightest mistake I'd make against the posting guidelines or
> other rules might be inflammatory.
> The regulars here that seem to repeatedly suggest that newcomers are
> scared away, are actually right.
> Because of this attitude, this is my first ever, and my last ever post
> on this group.
Come on, stick around! Do not allow those childish boys
to run you off. They are just no-count bozos.
Continue to exercise your Freedom of Speech!
These bozos around here hold no authority, zero authority.
Simply laugh them off. Those bozos are of no importance
and have no affect upon your life. They are actually comical!
Purl Gurl
------------------------------
Date: 15 Apr 2007 19:22:12 -0700
From: cartercc@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007)
Message-Id: <1176690132.873080.117070@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 15, 6:39 pm, Tad McClellan <t...@augustmail.com> wrote:
> Unless you want to be heard.
Lot less chance of being heard if you post your pithy two lines after
quoting 500 lines of someone else's drivel.
If your post is clear without reference to a prior post, then you
SHOULD top post. If your post needs a reference to other material for
clarity, the quote only what you need to.
You and I have crossed paths on this several times. Frankly, I find
your insistence that everything be bottom posted regardless of context
juvenile and immature. I know you don't agree, and I won't attempt to
change your mind. If the consequence of my top posting means that you
won't be reading my posts, I can live with that. I don't need you
telling me how to post on usenet.
CC
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 03:47:48 GMT
From: "Jürgen Exner" <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007)
Message-Id: <ElCUh.9161$807.3255@trndny09>
cartercc@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 15, 6:39 pm, Tad McClellan <t...@augustmail.com> wrote:
>> Unless you want to be heard.
>
> Lot less chance of being heard if you post your pithy two lines after
> quoting 500 lines of someone else's drivel.
Bollocks. Why would you quote 500 lines of drivel?
> If your post is clear without reference to a prior post, then you
> SHOULD top post.
Well, in that case top post and bottom post would be identical because you
wouldn't quote anything anyway, wouldn't you?
> If your post needs a reference to other material for
> clarity, the quote only what you need to.
Sounds like an excellent idea to me. Seems we are actually in perfect
agreement then?
jue
------------------------------
Date: 16 Apr 2007 07:31:13 GMT
From: Abigail <abigail@abigail.be>
Subject: Re: Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007)
Message-Id: <slrnf269hl.gh.abigail@alexandra.abigail.be>
cartercc@gmail.com (cartercc@gmail.com) wrote on MMMMCMLXXV September
MCMXCIII in <URL:news:1176658282.707296.113010@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>:
<> On Apr 14, 8:52 pm, Ed Jay <e...@aes-intl.com> wrote:
<> > Someone is likely going to get on you for 'top posting' your response.
<> > Usenet etiquette, tradition and logical discussion flow dictates that you
<> > post your response below that to which your responding, or interspersed, as
<> > I've done, above, to answer a specific point.
<>
<> I started with usenet in the days of the rubber cushions used to
<> cradle a telephone handset. You paid for connection time by the
<> minute, it it wasn't cheap. In the days of the 9600 baud modem, you
<> needed to make every line count. In that environment, bottom posters
<> were cursed. I mean this literally. The rule was, don't repeat what
<> someone else has already said unless absolutely essential to
<> understanding. In the case of my top post, nothing anyone else said is
<> essential to understanding anything I said. So ... no need to bottom
<> post.
Odd.
In the 20 years I've been posting to Usenet, top-posting was never the rule.
In fact, in the "early days", it was so uncommon people didn't even discuss,
let alone defend it.
Abigail
--
perl -MTime::JulianDay -lwe'@r=reverse(M=>(0)x99=>CM=>(0)x399=>D=>(0)x99=>CD=>(
0)x299=>C=>(0)x9=>XC=>(0)x39=>L=>(0)x9=>XL=>(0)x29=>X=>IX=>0=>0=>0=>V=>IV=>0=>0
=>I=>$==-2449231+gm_julian_day+time);do{until($=<$#r){$_.=$r[$#r];$=-=$#r}for(;
!$r[--$#r];){}}while$=;$,="\x20";print+$_=>September=>MCMXCIII=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:23:59 +0200
From: "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Subject: Re: Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007)
Message-Id: <slrnf26ckv.ckq.hjp-usenet2@zeno.hjp.at>
On 2007-04-16 02:22, cartercc@gmail.com <cartercc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 6:39 pm, Tad McClellan <t...@augustmail.com> wrote:
>> Unless you want to be heard.
>
> Lot less chance of being heard if you post your pithy two lines after
> quoting 500 lines of someone else's drivel.
[...]
> Frankly, I find your insistence that everything be bottom posted
> regardless of context juvenile and immature.
I don't think Tad ever insisted that you should quote everything and add
your comments below that. He doesn't do it himself.
> If your post is clear without reference to a prior post, then you
> SHOULD top post.
No, then you should start a new thread.
> If your post needs a reference to other material for clarity, the
> quote only what you need to.
Right. That's what Tad does and I find it hard to believe that would
advise others to the contrary.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | I know I'd be respectful of a pirate
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | with an emu on his shoulder.
| | | hjp@hjp.at |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Sam in "Freefall"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:53:55 +0200
From: Michele Dondi <bik.mido@tiscalinet.it>
Subject: Re: Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007)
Message-Id: <a9e623dspff5bj0dlvasu423cl9enaf3mv@4ax.com>
On 15 Apr 2007 19:22:12 -0700, cartercc@gmail.com wrote:
>If your post is clear without reference to a prior post, then you
>SHOULD top post. If your post needs a reference to other material for
>clarity, the quote only what you need to.
>
>You and I have crossed paths on this several times. Frankly, I find
>your insistence that everything be bottom posted regardless of context
>juvenile and immature. I know you don't agree, and I won't attempt to
>change your mind. If the consequence of my top posting means that you
>won't be reading my posts, I can live with that. I don't need you
>telling me how to post on usenet.
I think Tad, just like most people here, has never advocated *bottom
posting*, but as you *rightly* wrote, to only "quote what you need
to". Personally I think that *alway* adds clarity to a post which is
in reply to some other one.
Michele
--
{$_=pack'B8'x25,unpack'A8'x32,$a^=sub{pop^pop}->(map substr
(($a||=join'',map--$|x$_,(unpack'w',unpack'u','G^<R<Y]*YB='
.'KYU;*EVH[.FHF2W+#"\Z*5TI/ER<Z`S(G.DZZ9OX0Z')=~/./g)x2,$_,
256),7,249);s/[^\w,]/ /g;$ \=/^J/?$/:"\r";print,redo}#JAPH,
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:58:42 +0200
From: Michele Dondi <bik.mido@tiscalinet.it>
Subject: Re: Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007)
Message-Id: <aee62395e4vk1ukp4e5c19ock32vrdf830@4ax.com>
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 03:47:48 GMT, "Jürgen Exner"
<jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Lot less chance of being heard if you post your pithy two lines after
>> quoting 500 lines of someone else's drivel.
>
>Bollocks. Why would you quote 500 lines of drivel?
Also, who ever said one should do so? Certainly not Tad!
>> If your post needs a reference to other material for
>> clarity, the quote only what you need to.
>
>Sounds like an excellent idea to me. Seems we are actually in perfect
>agreement then?
The difference being that apparently from the POV of the person you're
replying to there are situations in which a post *doesn't* need a
reference to other material for clarity, which is an idea that I don't
buy, as far as a folloup is concerned: more precisely I can't remember
having found a single instance in which this would have been the case.
Michele
--
{$_=pack'B8'x25,unpack'A8'x32,$a^=sub{pop^pop}->(map substr
(($a||=join'',map--$|x$_,(unpack'w',unpack'u','G^<R<Y]*YB='
.'KYU;*EVH[.FHF2W+#"\Z*5TI/ER<Z`S(G.DZZ9OX0Z')=~/./g)x2,$_,
256),7,249);s/[^\w,]/ /g;$ \=/^J/?$/:"\r";print,redo}#JAPH,
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:02:45 +0200
From: Michele Dondi <bik.mido@tiscalinet.it>
Subject: Re: Top Turds of comp.lang.perl.misc (2007)
Message-Id: <iqe623dp8d2snmt2e73lccj6j9bmv7d5lo@4ax.com>
On 16 Apr 2007 07:31:13 GMT, Abigail <abigail@abigail.be> wrote:
><> I started with usenet in the days of the rubber cushions used to
[snip]
>Odd.
>
>In the 20 years I've been posting to Usenet, top-posting was never the rule.
>In fact, in the "early days", it was so uncommon people didn't even discuss,
>let alone defend it.
According to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet> he may have some
six years of advantage on you. Has he? Who knows?!?
Michele
--
{$_=pack'B8'x25,unpack'A8'x32,$a^=sub{pop^pop}->(map substr
(($a||=join'',map--$|x$_,(unpack'w',unpack'u','G^<R<Y]*YB='
.'KYU;*EVH[.FHF2W+#"\Z*5TI/ER<Z`S(G.DZZ9OX0Z')=~/./g)x2,$_,
256),7,249);s/[^\w,]/ /g;$ \=/^J/?$/:"\r";print,redo}#JAPH,
------------------------------
Date: 15 Apr 2007 19:36:55 -0700
From: "talan" <anerbenartzi@gmail.com>
Subject: why must you compile C with embeded perl the same way?
Message-Id: <1176691015.708197.297670@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
Hi. In the camel book, and in perlembed, it says: "COMPILE THE
PROGRAMS IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THAT YOUR PERL WAS COMPILED". Why is
that? Specifically, if you use ActivePerl in Windows, you didn't
compile perl at all. What sort of errors can come up if this isn't
heeded? When is it really important? Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:43:49 -0700
From: Joe Smith <joe@inwap.com>
Subject: Re: why must you compile C with embeded perl the same way?
Message-Id: <PbidnUm3Jr5GY7_bnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@comcast.com>
talan wrote:
> Hi. In the camel book, and in perlembed, it says: "COMPILE THE
> PROGRAMS IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THAT YOUR PERL WAS COMPILED". Why is that?
Take a look at the output from 'perl -V'. There are some compiler flags
that, if they don't match, will prevent you code from properly linking
with the core code. For instance: -Duse64bitint -Dusethreads -Uusemymalloc.
And: useperlio=define d_sfio=undef uselargefiles=define usesocks=undef.
-Joe
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 03:25:53 -0400
From: Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org>
Subject: Re: why must you compile C with embeded perl the same way?
Message-Id: <m2tzvgzsou.fsf@local.wv-www.com>
"talan" <anerbenartzi@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi. In the camel book, and in perlembed, it says: "COMPILE THE
> PROGRAMS IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THAT YOUR PERL WAS COMPILED". Why is
> that? Specifically, if you use ActivePerl in Windows, you didn't
> compile perl at all.
It definitely was compiled. Whether you did it yourself or ActiveState did
it for you is irrelevant.
> What sort of errors can come up if this isn't heeded?
You can end up with an application and/or modules that are not compatible
with your Perl. For instance, if you try to use a single-threaded libperl
in a multi-threaded app, or a 32-bit libperl in a 64-bit app. These issues
don't always result in a failure to compile - they can also mean crashes,
especially if the issue is threading.
> When is it really important?
Always.
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
------------------------------
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 V11 Issue 346
**************************************
