[30201] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 1444 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Tue Apr 15 16:01:19 2008
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:01:08 -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 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 Volume: 11 Number: 1444
Today's topics:
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <RedGrittyBrick@SpamWeary.foo>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <glennj@ncf.ca>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <RedGrittyBrick@SpamWeary.foo>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <tadmc@seesig.invalid>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 (Randal L. Schwartz)
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <someone@example.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <spamtrap@dot-app.org>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <RedGrittyBrick@SpamWeary.foo>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <RedGrittyBrick@SpamWeary.foo>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <devnull4711@web.de>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <Mark.Seger@hp.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <Mark.Seger@hp.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <someone@example.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <RedGrittyBrick@SpamWeary.foo>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <willem@stack.nl>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <Mark.Seger@hp.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <john@castleamber.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <tadmc@seesig.invalid>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <get@bentsys.com>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <syscjm@sumire.gwu.edu>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <syscjm@sumire.gwu.edu>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <rvtol+news@isolution.nl>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org>
Re: perl should be improved and perl6 <tadmc@seesig.invalid>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 21:48:27 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <665kguF2iosooU1@mid.individual.net>
RedGrittyBrick wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:
>> It appears to me that most of you who are so bent against the usage
>> of "PERL" are missing or just plain ignoring 'perldoc perl'
>
> perldoc perl
> NAME
> perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language
>
> SYNOPSIS
> perl ...
>
> If you're new to Perl, ...
>
>
> I note that perldoc perl does NOT say
> NAME
> PERL - Practical Extraction and Report Language
>
> SYNOPSIS
> PERL ...
>
> If you're new to PERL, ...
It also does not say "Perl" in the NAME line, but "perl". "PERL" comes
from the abbreviating of "Practical Extraction and Report Language"...
and why it shouldn't be a problem to use "PERL".
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:34:01 +0100
From: RedGrittyBrick <RedGrittyBrick@SpamWeary.foo>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <47fdd0fd$0$10629$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>
Gordon Etly wrote:
> RedGrittyBrick wrote:
>> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>> It appears to me that most of you who are so bent against the usage
>>> of "PERL" are missing or just plain ignoring 'perldoc perl'
>> perldoc perl
>> NAME
>> perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language
>>
>> SYNOPSIS
>> perl ...
>>
>> If you're new to Perl, ...
>>
>>
>> I note that perldoc perl does NOT say
>> NAME
>> PERL - Practical Extraction and Report Language
>>
>> SYNOPSIS
>> PERL ...
>>
>> If you're new to PERL, ...
>
> It also does not say "Perl" in the NAME line, but "perl". "PERL" comes
> from the abbreviating of "Practical Extraction and Report Language"...
As you know, there is a difference between an abbreviation and an
acronym. I'm guessing you don't actually pronounce PERL as an abbreviation.
See also mention of PERL in
http://wordsmith.org/words/backronym.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym
> and why it shouldn't be a problem to use "PERL".
AFAIK the capitalised PERL appears nowhere in the documentation. Other
than where Perlfaq -q differences says not to use PERL. None of my Perl
books use PERL. Larry wall doesn't use PERL. That's enough for me.
The only problem would be if you care about occasionally being mistaken
for an ignorant beginner or for someone who enjoys being deliberately
perverse ;-)
--
RGB
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:02:14 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <666ofoF2hgapoU1@mid.individual.net>
RedGrittyBrick wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:
>> RedGrittyBrick wrote:
>>> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>>> It appears to me that most of you who are so bent against the usage
>>>> of "PERL" are missing or just plain ignoring 'perldoc perl'
>>> perldoc perl
>>> NAME
>>> perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language
>>>
>>> SYNOPSIS
>>> perl ...
>>>
>>> If you're new to Perl, ...
>>>
>>>
>>> I note that perldoc perl does NOT say
>>> NAME
>>> PERL - Practical Extraction and Report Language
>>>
>>> SYNOPSIS
>>> PERL ...
>>>
>>> If you're new to PERL, ...
>>
>> It also does not say "Perl" in the NAME line, but "perl". "PERL"
>> comes from the abbreviating of "Practical Extraction and Report
>> Language"...
>
> As you know, there is a difference between an abbreviation and an
> acronym. I'm guessing you don't actually pronounce PERL as an
> abbreviation.
> See also mention of PERL in
> http://wordsmith.org/words/backronym.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backronym
This is all just a technicality that misses the point, which is the
//official documentation// gives a definition for PERL. The point is,
since the //official documentation// give it, it should be fine to use
PERL.
>> and why it shouldn't be a problem to use "PERL".
>
> AFAIK the capitalised PERL appears nowhere in the documentation. Other
> than where Perlfaq -q differences says not to use PERL. None of my
> Perl books use PERL. Larry wall doesn't use PERL. That's enough for
> me.
The //official documentation// defines PERL as being "Practical
Extraction and Report Language", and therefore should be acceptable.
Even Larry Wall gave "Practical Extraction and Report Language" as a
definition, and another (though I think we can all agree the other one
was more in jest.) No, it's not an official definition, but it appears
in the //official documentation// and that's enough for me.
> The only problem would be if you care about occasionally being
> mistaken for an ignorant beginner or for someone who enjoys being
> deliberately perverse ;-)
It's just as arguable that those accusing people of being ignorant are
themselves ignorant of the //official documentation// ;-)
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: 10 Apr 2008 15:21:59 GMT
From: Glenn Jackman <glennj@ncf.ca>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <slrnfvsc4n.2p6.glennj@smeagol.ncf.ca>
At 2008-04-10 11:02AM, "Gordon Etly" wrote:
> It's just as arguable that those accusing people of being ignorant are
> themselves ignorant of the //official documentation// ;-)
Note that the perldocs are also //official documentation//, and you can
see that the //official documentation// (perldoc -q difference) says
'never write "PERL", because perl isn't really an acronym'.
--
Glenn Jackman
"If there is anything the nonconformist hates worse than a conformist,
it's another nonconformist who doesn't conform to the prevailing
standard of nonconformity." -- Bill Vaughan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:35:24 +0100
From: RedGrittyBrick <RedGrittyBrick@SpamWeary.foo>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <oPGdnV8TZs130mPanZ2dnUVZ8j6dnZ2d@bt.com>
Gordon Etly wrote:
>
> The //official documentation// defines PERL as being "Practical
> Extraction and Report Language",
That definition in full:
"perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"
The //official documentation// says 'never write "PERL"'
--
RGB
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:21:09 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <667b5mF2io0e6U1@mid.individual.net>
Glenn Jackman wrote:
> At 2008-04-10 11:02AM, "Gordon Etly" wrote:
>> It's just as arguable that those accusing people of being ignorant
>> are themselves ignorant of the //official documentation// ;-)
>
> Note that the perldocs are also //official documentation//, and you
> can see that the //official documentation// (perldoc -q difference)
> says 'never write "PERL", because perl isn't really an acronym'.
Then the "difference" and the previous mentioned FAQ should be
mentioned, because the main document gives "Practical Extraction and
Report Language", which can be condensed to just "PERL". It's in the
main document so why have other documents that are contrary to it?
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:22:33 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <667b8aF2ijt3uU1@mid.individual.net>
RedGrittyBrick wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>
>> The //official documentation// defines PERL as being "Practical
>> Extraction and Report Language",
>
> That definition in full:
> "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"
>
> The //official documentation// says 'never write "PERL"'
It does not explicitly, I never claimed otherwise. It does write it
implicitly, as "Practical Extraction and Report Language", which can be
condensed into "PERL".
--
Etly
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:58:44 GMT
From: Tad J McClellan <tadmc@seesig.invalid>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <slrnfvt5o6.5rc.tadmc@tadmc30.sbcglobal.net>
Gordon Etly <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
> RedGrittyBrick wrote:
>> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>>
>>> The //official documentation// defines PERL as being "Practical
>>> Extraction and Report Language",
>>
>> That definition in full:
>> "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"
>>
>> The //official documentation// says 'never write "PERL"'
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It does not explicitly,
Yes it does.
The docs snippet that says those exact words has already
been posted in this thread.
--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.noitatibaher\100cmdat/"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:24:23 -0700
From: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <86skxtz42g.fsf@blue.stonehenge.com>
>>>>> "Gordon" == Gordon Etly <get@bentsys.com> writes:
Gordon> Then the "difference" and the previous mentioned FAQ should be
Gordon> mentioned, because the main document gives "Practical Extraction and
Gordon> Report Language", which can be condensed to just "PERL". It's in the
Gordon> main document so why have other documents that are contrary to it?
"man cat" =>
NAME
cat - concatenate and print files
Does that mean I should say that "cat" is really "CAPF"?
By that logic, there ya go.
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:41:44 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <6681f9F2j8enhU1@mid.individual.net>
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>> "Gordon" == Gordon Etly <get@bentsys.com> writes:
>
> Gordon> Then the "difference" and the previous mentioned FAQ should be
> Gordon> amended, because the main document gives "Practical
> Extraction and Report Language", which can be condensed to
> just "PERL". It's in the Gordon> main document so why have other
> documents that are contrary to it?
>
> "man cat" =>
>
> NAME
> cat - concatenate and print files
>
> Does that mean I should say that "cat" is really "CAPF"?
>
> By that logic, there ya go.
With all due respect, your logic is flawed (which I admit is rare.)
"concatenate and print files" is not written the same way as "Practical
Extraction and Report Language"... 1) the former is all lowercase, the
latter has capitalized letters, which yield PERL when put together. The
NAME line for 'man perl' (or 'perldoc perl') clearly defines PERL in
expanded form. The man for 'cat' does not.
I mean, would it be a stretch to say, "I just wrote a Practical
Extraction and Report Language program!" ? If that is valid, then why
wouldn't, "I just wrote a PERL program!" ? Yes, it would be more correct
to write "Perl" instead, but it should not be //wrong// to write "PERL"
(as an acronym for the definition given by Perl's own documentation.)
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:49:05 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <6681t2F2jsvieU1@mid.individual.net>
Tad J McClellan wrote:
> Gordon Etly <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
>> RedGrittyBrick wrote:
>>> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The //official documentation// defines PERL as being "Practical
>>>> Extraction and Report Language",
>>>
>>> That definition in full:
>>> "perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language"
>>>
>>> The //official documentation// says 'never write "PERL"'
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> It does not explicitly,
>
>
> Yes it does.
>
> The docs snippet that says those exact words has already
> been posted in this
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:25:20 GMT
From: "John W. Krahn" <someone@example.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <QKBLj.58895$_v3.56657@edtnps90>
Gordon Etly wrote:
> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>>> "Gordon" == Gordon Etly <get@bentsys.com> writes:
>> Gordon> Then the "difference" and the previous mentioned FAQ should be
>> Gordon> amended, because the main document gives "Practical
>> Extraction and Report Language", which can be condensed to
>> just "PERL". It's in the Gordon> main document so why have other
>> documents that are contrary to it?
>>
>> "man cat" =>
>>
>> NAME
>> cat - concatenate and print files
>>
>> Does that mean I should say that "cat" is really "CAPF"?
>>
>> By that logic, there ya go.
>
> With all due respect, your logic is flawed (which I admit is rare.)
>
> "concatenate and print files" is not written the same way as "Practical
> Extraction and Report Language"... 1) the former is all lowercase, the
> latter has capitalized letters, which yield PERL when put together. The
> NAME line for 'man perl' (or 'perldoc perl') clearly defines PERL in
> expanded form. The man for 'cat' does not.
>
> I mean, would it be a stretch to say, "I just wrote a Practical
> Extraction and Report Language program!" ? If that is valid, then why
> wouldn't, "I just wrote a PERL program!" ? Yes, it would be more correct
> to write "Perl" instead, but it should not be //wrong// to write "PERL"
> (as an acronym for the definition given by Perl's own documentation.)
man grep
GREP(1)
NAME
grep, egrep, fgrep, rgrep - print lines matching a pattern
But grep is short for "Global Regular Expression Print" so why doesn't
it say:
NAME
grep, egrep, fgrep, rgrep - Global Regular Expression Print
Instead?
John
--
Perl isn't a toolbox, but a small machine shop where you
can special-order certain sorts of tools at low cost and
in short order. -- Larry Wall
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:27:46 -0400
From: Sherman Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <m163uo4zrh.fsf@dot-app.org>
"Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> writes:
... endlessly ...
Will you give it a bloody rest already? Larry Wall invented the language,
and he says it's not called PERL. His language, his call. Deal with it.
sherm--
--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:48:33 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <669c24F2jf2uuU1@mid.individual.net>
John W. Krahn wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:
>> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Gordon" == Gordon Etly <get@bentsys.com> writes:
>>> Gordon> Then the "difference" and the previous mentioned FAQ should
>>> be Gordon> amended, because the main document gives "Practical
>>> Extraction and Report Language", which can be condensed to
>>> just "PERL". It's in the Gordon> main document so why have other
>>> documents that are contrary to it?
>>>
>>> "man cat" =>
>>>
>>> NAME
>>> cat - concatenate and print files
>>>
>>> Does that mean I should say that "cat" is really "CAPF"?
>>>
>>> By that logic, there ya go.
>>
>> With all due respect, your logic is flawed (which I admit is rare.)
>>
>> "concatenate and print files" is not written the same way as
>> "Practical Extraction and Report Language"... 1) the former is all
>> lowercase, the latter has capitalized letters, which yield PERL when
>> put together. The NAME line for 'man perl' (or 'perldoc perl')
>> clearly defines PERL in expanded form. The man for 'cat' does not.
>>
>> I mean, would it be a stretch to say, "I just wrote a Practical
>> Extraction and Report Language program!" ? If that is valid, then why
>> wouldn't, "I just wrote a PERL program!" ? Yes, it would be more
>> correct to write "Perl" instead, but it should not be //wrong// to
>> write "PERL" (as an acronym for the definition given by Perl's own
>> documentation.)
>
> man grep
>
> GREP(1)
>
> NAME
> grep, egrep, fgrep, rgrep - print lines matching a pattern
>
So what?
> But grep is short for "Global Regular Expression Print" so why doesn't
> it say:
>
> NAME
> grep, egrep, fgrep, rgrep - Global Regular Expression Print
>
>
> Instead?
Because every NAME line is different. Perl's happens to describe a
meaning for PERL.
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:49:57 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <669c4nF2jo0k4U1@mid.individual.net>
Sherman Pendley wrote:
> "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> writes:
>
> ... endlessly ...
>
> Will you give it a bloody rest already? Larry Wall invented the
> language, and he says it's not called PERL. His language, his call.
Wrong, Larry himeself described it the same way 'perldoc perl' does.
> Deal with it.
You're telling the wrong side.
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:25:25 +0100
From: RedGrittyBrick <RedGrittyBrick@SpamWeary.foo>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <47ff82e5$0$32047$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
Gordon Etly wrote:
> Sherman Pendley wrote:
>> "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> writes:
>>
>> ... endlessly ...
>>
>> Will you give it a bloody rest already? Larry Wall invented the
>> language, and he says it's not called PERL. His language, his call.
>
> Wrong, Larry himeself described it the same way 'perldoc perl' does.
i.e. both Larry and the docs use "perl" or "Perl" but *never* "PERL" and
have done so for many years.
See this page and the articles under "Culture".
http://www.wall.org/~larry/perl.html
No mentions of PERL that I can see.
--
RGB
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:26:06 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <669l9gF2hrg3cU1@mid.individual.net>
RedGrittyBrick wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:
>> Sherman Pendley wrote:
>>> "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> writes:
>>>
>>> ... endlessly ...
>>>
>>> Will you give it a bloody rest already? Larry Wall invented the
>>> language, and he says it's not called PERL. His language, his call.
>>
>> Wrong, Larry himeself described it the same way 'perldoc perl' does.
>
> i.e. both Larry and the docs use "perl" or "Perl" but *never* "PERL"
> and have done so for many years.
>
>
>
> See this page and the articles under "Culture".
> http://www.wall.org/~larry/perl.html
>
> No mentions of PERL that I can see.
'perldoc perl' defines PERL as "Practical Extraction and Report
Language" in the NAME line. Why do you ignore this?
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:25:53 +0100
From: RedGrittyBrick <RedGrittyBrick@SpamWeary.foo>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <JqCdnasJ8sjfJmLanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com>
Gordon Etly wrote:
> RedGrittyBrick wrote:
>> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>> Sherman Pendley wrote:
>>>> "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> ... endlessly ...
>>>>
>>>> Will you give it a bloody rest already? Larry Wall invented the
>>>> language, and he says it's not called PERL. His language, his call.
>>> Wrong, Larry himeself described it the same way 'perldoc perl' does.
>> i.e. both Larry and the docs use "perl" or "Perl" but *never* "PERL"
>> and have done so for many years.
>>
>>
>>
>> See this page and the articles under "Culture".
>> http://www.wall.org/~larry/perl.html
>>
>> No mentions of PERL that I can see.
>
> 'perldoc perl' defines PERL as "Practical Extraction and Report
> Language" in the NAME line. Why do you ignore this?
>
'perldoc perl' defines perl as "Practical Extraction and Report
Language" in the NAME line. I'm not ignoring that.
'perldoc perl' contains "Perl" hundreds of times and 'PERL' zero times.
Why do you ignore this?
--
RGB
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:34:31 +0200
From: Frank Seitz <devnull4711@web.de>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <669sqfF2jengdU4@mid.individual.net>
RedGrittyBrick wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>>>Wrong, Larry himeself described it the same way 'perldoc perl' does.
>>>
>>>i.e. both Larry and the docs use "perl" or "Perl" but *never* "PERL"
>>>and have done so for many years.
>>>
>>>See this page and the articles under "Culture".
>>>http://www.wall.org/~larry/perl.html
>>>
>>>No mentions of PERL that I can see.
>>
>>'perldoc perl' defines PERL as "Practical Extraction and Report
>>Language" in the NAME line. Why do you ignore this?
>
> 'perldoc perl' defines perl as "Practical Extraction and Report
> Language" in the NAME line. I'm not ignoring that.
>
> 'perldoc perl' contains "Perl" hundreds of times and 'PERL' zero times.
> Why do you ignore this?
I start to LOVE this TOPIC!
Frank
--
Dipl.-Inform. Frank Seitz; http://www.fseitz.de/
Anwendungen für Ihr Internet und Intranet
Tel: 04103/180301; Fax: -02; Industriestr. 31, 22880 Wedel
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:21:21 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <66aa3iF2jjjt2U1@mid.individual.net>
RedGrittyBrick wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:
>> RedGrittyBrick wrote:
>>> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>>> Sherman Pendley wrote:
>>>>> "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> ... endlessly ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Will you give it a bloody rest already? Larry Wall invented the
>>>>> language, and he says it's not called PERL. His language, his
>>>>> call.
>>>> Wrong, Larry himeself described it the same way 'perldoc perl'
>>>> does.
>>> i.e. both Larry and the docs use "perl" or "Perl" but *never* "PERL"
>>> and have done so for many years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> See this page and the articles under "Culture".
>>> http://www.wall.org/~larry/perl.html
>>>
>>> No mentions of PERL that I can see.
>>
>> 'perldoc perl' defines PERL as "Practical Extraction and Report
>> Language" in the NAME line. Why do you ignore this?
>>
>
> 'perldoc perl' defines perl as "Practical Extraction and Report
> Language" in the NAME line. I'm not ignoring that.
>
> 'perldoc perl' contains "Perl" hundreds of times and 'PERL' zero
> times. Why do you ignore this?
I'm not ignoring it at all. Whether or not "PERL" is used throughout the
documentation isn't the issue here. What is the issue is the fact that
since the main document defines "Practical Extraction and Report
Language", it should //not// be //wrong// to use "PERL".
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:38:51 -0400
From: Mark Seger <Mark.Seger@hp.com>
To: Gordon Etly <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <4800BB6B.9080104@hp.com>
I haven't had this much fun reading a posting thread in a looong time.
keep up the good work! Reminds me of the old days I worked at DEC! or
was if dec or digital or Digital or DIGITAL? and after all that, how
many people have been around to even know what I'm talking about! 8-(
-mark
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:49:55 -0400
From: Mark Seger <Mark.Seger@hp.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <ftqem4$i7u$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com>
Actually I found this so amusing I forwarded a posting off to a
colleague who promptly sent me the following:
"FWIW, the O'Reilly books are called
- Programming perl
- Programming Perl. 2nd Ed.
- PERL IN A NUTSHELL"
-mark
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:09:02 GMT
From: Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <o8g10415o56m1i08qpmkk5ujj6fja5du3e@4ax.com>
"Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
Does it strike anyone else as interesting that there is no record of
postings from Gordon Etly in this NG except for this thread?
You may draw your own conlucions...
jue
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:58:13 GMT
From: Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <mnm104pkei3uskps6fbfm1v8hvjjcnvmn3@4ax.com>
Andrew DeFaria <Andrew@DeFaria.com> wrote:
> <!Doctype html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
> <html>
> <head>
> </head>
> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
> Jürgen Exner wrote:
> <blockquote id="mid_o8g10415o56m1i08qpmkk5ujj6fja5du3e_4ax_com"
> cite="mid:o8g10415o56m1i08qpmkk5ujj6fja5du3e@4ax.com" type="cite">"Gordon
> Etly" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:get@bentsys.com"><get@bentsys.com></a> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Does it strike anyone else as interesting that there is no record of
> postings from Gordon Etly in this NG except for this thread? <br>
> </blockquote>
> No<br>
> <blockquote id="mid_o8g10415o56m1i08qpmkk5ujj6fja5du3e_4ax_com"
> cite="mid:o8g10415o56m1i08qpmkk5ujj6fja5du3e@4ax.com" type="cite">You
> may draw your own conlucions...<br>
> </blockquote>
> My conclusion is that he's only posted to this thread or you haven't
> looked hard enough. So what?<br>
Certainly. However at least _I_ find it rather strange that he has no
other interest but the capitalization of the name.
Also, his appearance in this NG at the same time as this stupid argument
is a really amazing coincidence.
You know, if it looks like a troll and smells like a troll then maybe it
it a troll?
> <div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
> <a href="http://defaria.com">Andrew DeFaria</a><br>
> <small><font color="#999999">If quitters never win, and winners never
> quit, what fool came up with, "Quit while you're ahead"?</font></small>
> </div>
> </body>
> </html>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:12:14 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <66c5b1F2jjp0aU1@mid.individual.net>
Mark Seger wrote:
> Actually I found this so amusing I forwarded a posting off to a
> colleague who promptly sent me the following:
>
> "FWIW, the O'Reilly books are called
> - Programming perl
> - Programming Perl. 2nd Ed.
> - PERL IN A NUTSHELL"
Yeah I've seen the nutshell book before and have found that interesting
too. I really wish people would just accept that it does indeed make
sense to write PERL if you mean it to say what 'perldoc perl' says.
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:14:23 GMT
From: "John W. Krahn" <someone@example.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <zd5Mj.1107$682.663@edtnps90>
Mark Seger wrote:
> I haven't had this much fun reading a posting thread in a looong time.
> keep up the good work! Reminds me of the old days I worked at DEC! or
> was if dec or digital or Digital or DIGITAL?
You mean Digital Equipment Corporation?
John
--
Perl isn't a toolbox, but a small machine shop where you
can special-order certain sorts of tools at low cost and
in short order. -- Larry Wall
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:16:39 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <66c5j8F2ihh8nU1@mid.individual.net>
Jürgen Exner wrote:
> "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
>
> Does it strike anyone else as interesting that there is no record of
> postings from Gordon Etly in this NG except for this thread?
>
> You may draw your own conlucions...
I've never been must of a poster, more of a reader, especially in this
group. I guess there's always something to set one off sooner or later.
Either way, thanks for avoiding the issue to make a personal attack. I
saw no written rule that one has to have a prior known posting record in
order to post somewhere. I've been a long time reader of this, among
many other groups and forums, and I see new faces come in here all the
time and yet I never see such comments like you just made.
FWIW, I thought I had a very good point going that many people simply
unwilling or unable to accept. IT doesn't mean one has to start making
personal attacks, however.
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:20:37 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <66c5qmF2jhp3aU1@mid.individual.net>
Jürgen Exner wrote:
> Andrew DeFaria <Andrew@DeFaria.com> wrote:
> Certainly. However at least _I_ find it rather strange that he has no
> other interest but the capitalization of the name.
> Also, his appearance in this NG at the same time as this stupid
> argument is a really amazing coincidence.
>
> You know, if it looks like a troll and smells like a troll then maybe
> it it a troll?
So, by your logic, if one wants to speak their mind about something they
believe in, they can only be a troll? Come now, if you don't like the
topic, don't come in making unfounded personal attacks. If you can't add
something constructive to a conversation, why jump in like this? Just to
look like you are some authority figure to police UseNet?
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:53:00 +0200
From: "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <slrng01q7c.1to.hjp-usenet2@hrunkner.hjp.at>
On 2008-04-12 13:49, Mark Seger <Mark.Seger@hp.com> wrote:
> "FWIW, the O'Reilly books are called
And of course nobody knows how to pronounce O'Reilly, either ;-)
hp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:54:01 +0200
From: "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <slrng01tpp.2q1.hjp-usenet2@hrunkner.hjp.at>
On 2008-04-12 16:12, Gordon Etly <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
> Mark Seger wrote:
>> Actually I found this so amusing I forwarded a posting off to a
>> colleague who promptly sent me the following:
>>
>> "FWIW, the O'Reilly books are called
>> - Programming perl
>> - Programming Perl. 2nd Ed.
>> - PERL IN A NUTSHELL"
>
> Yeah I've seen the nutshell book before and have found that interesting
> too.
What's interesting about it? Book titles in all caps are quite common.
> I really wish people would just accept that it does indeed make
> sense to write PERL if you mean it to say what 'perldoc perl' says.
ONLY IF YOU WRITE IN ALL CAPS. OF COURSE THEN YOU'D HAVE TO WRITE \PERL
IF YOU MEAN THE LANGUAGE AND PERL IF YOU MEAN THE INTERPRETER. BUT
\T\A\N\S\T\A\A\F\L, AS THEY SAY.
\S\C\N\R,
HP
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:25:05 +0100
From: RedGrittyBrick <RedGrittyBrick@SpamWeary.foo>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <ZLednfqThpA-h5zVnZ2dnUVZ8h2dnZ2d@bt.com>
Gordon Etly wrote:
> RedGrittyBrick wrote:
>> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>> RedGrittyBrick wrote:
>>>> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>>>> Sherman Pendley wrote:
>>>>>> "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... endlessly ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will you give it a bloody rest already? Larry Wall invented the
>>>>>> language, and he says it's not called PERL. His language, his
>>>>>> call.
>>>>> Wrong, Larry himeself described it the same way 'perldoc perl'
>>>>> does.
>>>> i.e. both Larry and the docs use "perl" or "Perl" but *never* "PERL"
>>>> and have done so for many years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See this page and the articles under "Culture".
>>>> http://www.wall.org/~larry/perl.html
>>>>
>>>> No mentions of PERL that I can see.
>>> 'perldoc perl' defines PERL as "Practical Extraction and Report
>>> Language" in the NAME line. Why do you ignore this?
>>>
>> 'perldoc perl' defines perl as "Practical Extraction and Report
>> Language" in the NAME line. I'm not ignoring that.
>>
>> 'perldoc perl' contains "Perl" hundreds of times and 'PERL' zero
>> times. Why do you ignore this?
>
> I'm not ignoring it at all. Whether or not "PERL" is used throughout the
> documentation isn't the issue here.
I believe it is germane to the issue.
> What is the issue is the fact that
> since the main document defines "Practical Extraction and Report
> Language", it should //not// be //wrong// to use "PERL".
I think it is your opinion, not a "fact", that your conclusion flows
from your premise. Your premise is somewhat tendentious since I believe
the documents as a whole (not merely one) describe (rather than define)
the language Perl (rather than the phrase).
Contrary to what you seem to imply, the phrase to the right of the
hyphen is often not related to the *name* of the thing being described.
The following phrases are all on the right of a hyphen in the first
sentence of equivalently formatted documentation for various languages:
"an interpreted, interactive, object-oriented programming language"
"pattern-directed scanning and processing language"
"Interpreted object-oriented scripting language"
None of the above are related to names, even when the actual names are
acronyms.
The issue, for me, is not what you have written above, but whether or
not the official Perl documentation supports the use of the
capitalisation "PERL".
Fact:
One prominent part of the perl documentation contains the phrase
"Practical Extraction and Reporting Language".
Fact:
Taken in *isolation*, this does suggest that the name Perl is an acronym.
Fact:
Larry Wall has said that he considered Gloria and Pearl as names before
removing the "a" from "Pearl". The name was not formed as an acronym.
Fact:
The Perl documentation uses "Perl" and not "PERL".
Fact:
The Perl documentation explicitly says "never use PERL".
Opinion (mine):
An explicit prohibition ought to trump something merely hinted at by the
capitalisation of a phrase.
Opinion (mine):
Taken in context, the astute reader will realise that, according to the
perl documentation as a whole, "Perl" is right and "PERL" is wrong.
I actually don't care much whether people use the wrong name for Perl.
When people assert that the documentation justifies this, I feel it
worth saying why I disagree.
I'm glad to have brought a little pleasure to Frank et al, but sorry - I
think this may be the last I have to say on the subject. In this thread
at least :-)
--
RGB
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:02:59 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <66cmc5F2jvt1pU1@mid.individual.net>
RedGrittyBrick wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:
>> RedGrittyBrick wrote:
>>> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>>> RedGrittyBrick wrote:
>>>>> Gordon Etly wrote:
>>>>>> Sherman Pendley wrote:
>>>>>>> "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... endlessly ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will you give it a bloody rest already? Larry Wall invented the
>>>>>>> language, and he says it's not called PERL. His language, his
>>>>>>> call.
>>>>>> Wrong, Larry himeself described it the same way 'perldoc perl'
>>>>>> does.
>>>>> i.e. both Larry and the docs use "perl" or "Perl" but *never*
>>>>> "PERL" and have done so for many years.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> See this page and the articles under "Culture".
>>>>> http://www.wall.org/~larry/perl.html
>>>>>
>>>>> No mentions of PERL that I can see.
>>>> 'perldoc perl' defines PERL as "Practical Extraction and Report
>>>> Language" in the NAME line. Why do you ignore this?
>>>>
>>> 'perldoc perl' defines perl as "Practical Extraction and Report
>>> Language" in the NAME line. I'm not ignoring that.
>>>
>>> 'perldoc perl' contains "Perl" hundreds of times and 'PERL' zero
>>> times. Why do you ignore this?
>>
>> I'm not ignoring it at all. Whether or not "PERL" is used throughout
>> the documentation isn't the issue here.
>
> I believe it is germane to the issue.
Sorry, but no, that was never the issuer at hand, but rather a tangent
off the issue.
>> What is the issue is the fact that
>> since the main document defines "Practical Extraction and Report
>> Language", it should //not// be //wrong// to use "PERL".
>
> I think it is your opinion, not a "fact", that your conclusion flows
> from your premise.
'perldoc perl' is not my opinion.
It states "Practical Extraction and Report Language" and therefore I
don't know why it should be considered wrong to use "PERL" as a short
for that, which it very well is.
[...]
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:05:42 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <66cmh7F2jvl8uU1@mid.individual.net>
Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> On 2008-04-12 16:12, Gordon Etly <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
>> Mark Seger wrote:
>>> Actually I found this so amusing I forwarded a posting off to a
>>> colleague who promptly sent me the following:
>>>
>>> "FWIW, the O'Reilly books are called
>>> - Programming perl
>>> - Programming Perl. 2nd Ed.
>>> - PERL IN A NUTSHELL"
>>
>> Yeah I've seen the nutshell book before and have found that
>> interesting too.
>
> What's interesting about it? Book titles in all caps are quite common.
Ok, I should of said, the first time I saw that book on a shelf I found
it interesting it spelt "Perl" that way, but yes, that is a common
style.
>> I really wish people would just accept that it does indeed make
>> sense to write PERL if you mean it to say what 'perldoc perl' says.
>
> ONLY IF YOU WRITE IN ALL CAPS.
Again, you're missing the point. 'perldoc perl' says "Practical
Extraction and Report Language" so using "PERL" for short should not be
wrong since the primary document gives this meaning.
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:16:15 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jim Cochrane <allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <slrng03gae.i80.allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org>
On 2008-04-12, Gordon Etly <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
> Peter J. Holzer wrote:
>> On 2008-04-12 16:12, Gordon Etly <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
>>> Mark Seger wrote:
>>>> Actually I found this so amusing I forwarded a posting off to a
>>>> colleague who promptly sent me the following:
>>>>
>>>> "FWIW, the O'Reilly books are called
>>>> - Programming perl
>>>> - Programming Perl. 2nd Ed.
>>>> - PERL IN A NUTSHELL"
>>>
>>> Yeah I've seen the nutshell book before and have found that
>>> interesting too.
>>
>> What's interesting about it? Book titles in all caps are quite common.
>
> Ok, I should of said, the first time I saw that book on a shelf I found
^^^^^^^^^
"should've" or "should have"
> it interesting it spelt "Perl" that way, but yes, that is a common
> style.
>...
--
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 08:24:40 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <66emtqF2j712lU1@mid.individual.net>
Jim Cochrane wrote:
> On 2008-04-12, Gordon Etly <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
>> Peter J. Holzer wrote:
>>> On 2008-04-12 16:12, Gordon Etly <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
>>>> Mark Seger wrote:
>>>>> Actually I found this so amusing I forwarded a posting off to a
>>>>> colleague who promptly sent me the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> "FWIW, the O'Reilly books are called
>>>>> - Programming perl
>>>>> - Programming Perl. 2nd Ed.
>>>>> - PERL IN A NUTSHELL"
>>>>
>>>> Yeah I've seen the nutshell book before and have found that
>>>> interesting too.
>>>
>>> What's interesting about it? Book titles in all caps are quite
>>> common.
>>
>> Ok, I should of said, the first time I saw that book on a shelf I
>> found
> ^^^^^^^^^
> "should've" or "should have"
Depends what state you're from :) "should have"/"should've" is more
proper of course, but it's not terribly uncommon to see people using
"should of". Either way I never saw a sign saying one must use 100%
proper grammar.
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:48:01 GMT
From: Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <cld404104ofkm4c10uu17uhn18bjjq1l85@4ax.com>
"Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
>Jim Cochrane wrote:
>>> Ok, I should of said, the first time I saw that book on a shelf I
>>> found
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>> "should've" or "should have"
>
>Depends what state you're from :)
North Rhine-Westfalia. Why should that matter? And what about people who
come from countries that don't have states because they are not
federations?
> "should have"/"should've" is more
>proper of course, but it's not terribly uncommon to see people using
>"should of".
It is very uncommon in English classes and surely marked as a mistake.
Therefore it shouldn't come as a surprise that the vast majority of
people won't understand it.
>Either way I never saw a sign saying one must use 100%
>proper grammar.
True, but correct spelling sure helps the readers. I for my part assumed
he meant "I should of course said" or something along that line. Missing
a word is a more frequent typo than replacing it with another word.
jue
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:37:57 +0000 (UTC)
From: Willem <willem@stack.nl>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <slrng04h7l.1jlc.willem@snail.stack.nl>
Jürgen wrote:
) True, but correct spelling sure helps the readers. I for my part assumed
) he meant "I should of course said" or something along that line. Missing
) a word is a more frequent typo than replacing it with another word.
Maybe you would be interested to know 'should of' is a typo that is most
often made by native English speakers, because it is fonetically close to
'should have'.
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:05:12 -0400
From: Mark Seger <Mark.Seger@hp.com>
To: Willem <willem@stack.nl>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <48024B58.4050004@hp.com>
Willem wrote:
> Jürgen wrote:
> ) True, but correct spelling sure helps the readers. I for my part assumed
> ) he meant "I should of course said" or something along that line. Missing
> ) a word is a more frequent typo than replacing it with another word.
>
> Maybe you would be interested to know 'should of' is a typo that is most
> often made by native English speakers, because it is fonetically close to
> 'should have'.
>
>
> SaSW, Willem
I wonder what these guys would have to say about this conversation:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/29/on_the_road_looking_for_typos/
-mark
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:33:28 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <66f90pF2k29c4U1@mid.individual.net>
Jürgen Exner wrote:
> "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
>> Jim Cochrane wrote:
>>>> Ok, I should of said, the first time I saw that book on a shelf I
>>>> found
>>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>> "should've" or "should have"
>>
>> Depends what state you're from :)
>
> North Rhine-Westfalia. Why should that matter? And what about people
> who come from countries that don't have states because they are not
> federations?
Ok, how about "place", or "locale" or whatever you want? Why is this so
important to you? To sway attention away from the central topic of this
(sub) thread?
>> "should have"/"should've" is more
>> proper of course, but it's not terribly uncommon to see people using
>> "should of".
>
> It is very uncommon in English classes and surely marked as a mistake.
> Therefore it shouldn't come as a surprise that the vast majority of
> people won't understand it.
This is just untrue. It is a common variation in general speech - speech
that doesn't necessarily follow English grammar rules to the letter, but
I don't understand why you pretend this is something suddenly new in the
world?
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:35:37 -0700
From: Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <auaad5xak1.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>
On 2008-04-13, Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
>
>> "should have"/"should've" is more
>>proper of course, but it's not terribly uncommon to see people using
>>"should of".
"should of" is wrong. It's at least as wrong than PERL.
> It is very uncommon in English classes and surely marked as a mistake.
> Therefore it shouldn't come as a surprise that the vast majority of
> people won't understand it.
Sadly, while using "should of" is 100% incorrect, lots of undereducated
Americans believe that's the correct usage. This is a lot like the
way-too-long argument going on in this thread: common usage (PERL/
"should of") does not imply *correct* usage, no matter how you choose to
justify the common use.
--keith
--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
------------------------------
Date: 13 Apr 2008 22:53:40 GMT
From: John Bokma <john@castleamber.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <Xns9A7FB6083BA2Acastleamber@130.133.1.4>
"Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
> Depends what state you're from :) "should have"/"should've" is more
> proper of course, but it's not terribly uncommon to see people using
> "should of". Either way I never saw a sign saying one must use 100%
> proper grammar.
*hears Purlgurl cry, because she has just lost her trolling award*
--
John
http://johnbokma.com/perl/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:53:57 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <66fh87F2k8fehU1@mid.individual.net>
Keith Keller wrote:
> On 2008-04-13, Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "should have"/"should've" is more
>>> proper of course, but it's not terribly uncommon to see people using
>>> "should of".
>
> "should of" is wrong. It's at least as wrong than PERL.
Except that "PERL" is defined in it's own documentation, and that's the
whole issue; that it should not be wrong to use "PERL" (if used as a
short for what 'perldoc perl' describes in the NAME line.)
>> It is very uncommon in English classes and surely marked as a
>> mistake. Therefore it shouldn't come as a surprise that the vast
>> majority of people won't understand it.
>
> Sadly, while using "should of" is 100% incorrect, lots of
> undereducated Americans believe that's the correct usage.
Not necessarily undereducated, although that is a problem in general.
The usage of such (improper) language is more of a casual thing than
simply an undereducated thing.
> common usage (PERL/ "should of") does not imply *correct* usage,
> no matter how you choose to justify the common use.
Except that "PERL" is defined by the primary document, 'perldoc perl',
which has been the whole point, and what makes the difference.
Also, this isn't an English newsgroup, so what does it matter if one
doesn't always use perfect English. It's not uncommon to have such
misuse of language rub-off sometimes, mainly from the common usage in
general.
Either way, I don't think such an argument of grammar really has any
place here.
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:54:40 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <66fkq1F2k63d3U1@mid.individual.net>
John Bokma wrote:
> "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
>
>> Depends what state you're from :) "should have"/"should've" is more
>> proper of course, but it's not terribly uncommon to see people using
>> "should of". Either way I never saw a sign saying one must use 100%
>> proper grammar.
>
> *hears Purlgurl cry, because she has just lost her trolling award*
So counter points as they come in makes one a troll now? Do you really
consider it to be so terrible to look at something you feel you know so
well in a different way? Why should it be a taboo to even discuss
something like the usage of "PERL"?
I have maintained the stance that 'perldoc perl' defines it, some people
threw in their two cents, I countered the points, but it seems no one
really addressed the fact the "PERL" is defined (expanded) in 'perldoc
perl' and has stated concretely why "PERL" should not be used, given how
the document defines it's meaning (or at least could be interpreted as
such.)
Lastly, no one is forced to read anything, in any news group or forum
alike, so why are some people so worried as to how far a thread goes on?
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:20:28 GMT
From: Tad J McClellan <tadmc@seesig.invalid>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <slrng05ih6.mm0.tadmc@tadmc30.sbcglobal.net>
John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
> "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
>
>> Depends what state you're from :) "should have"/"should've" is more
>> proper of course, but it's not terribly uncommon to see people using
>> "should of".
Pffft.
> *hears Purlgurl cry, because she has just lost her trolling award*
^^^^
^^^^
Errr, it's been quite some time...
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.perl.misc/msg/8433edf143698a4d
--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.noitatibaher\100cmdat/"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:53:21 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <66gdb2F2i342gU1@mid.individual.net>
Tad J McClellan wrote:
> John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
>> "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Depends what state you're from :) "should have"/"should've" is more
>>> proper of course, but it's not terribly uncommon to see people using
>>> "should of".
>
>
> Pffft.
>
>
>> *hears Purlgurl cry, because she has just lost her trolling award*
> ^^^^
> ^^^^
>
> Errr, it's been quite some time...
>
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.perl.misc/msg/8433edf143698a4d
Opening this link reveals a list of email addresses and ipaddresses, but
how can anyone be certain of how anything on this list actually
connects? Scrolling down shows that much of it is based on typos of
certain phrases. Can you really say this is a viable means of matching
people?
To me, this is like having an unchecked greedy '.*' or '.+' quantifier
in a regex, matching much more than one intended or expected. Further,
the scope of the search seems incredibly arbitrary; It's like saying
everyone who dressed a certain way from time A to time B, because they
dressed similarly, are all affiliated with one another.
To re-hash, I made the point that Perl's documentation gives a meaning
for each letter the name in the language, and a common way of shortening
that would be to write "PERL", would it not? In return, anyone who
agreed with my comments was painted by you and others, who appear to be
aligned with you, as being the work of one person, without one shred of
evidence to backup such claims, so thus, boiling down to little more
than personal attacks from the discontent.
The ironic thing is, given how one, "Purl Gurl", was brought up. Did she
not attempt to lump you all into one single entity with the name
"Frank"? And here you and others go, doing the exact same thing to other
people. And of course it is you who are the better person, right?
And I've yet to see anyone truly state why it is wrong to use "PERL"
given the definition of those letters in 'perldoc perl', and I some how
I doubt one will come from you, but if you or others would feel so
inclined, than I welcome a civilized discussion. If not, you have the
freedom to ignore this thread.
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:09:22 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jim Cochrane <allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <slrng0649h.1le.allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org>
On 2008-04-13, Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
>>Jim Cochrane wrote:
>>>> Ok, I should of said, the first time I saw that book on a shelf I
>>>> found
>>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>> "should've" or "should have"
>>
>>Depends what state you're from :)
>
> North Rhine-Westfalia. Why should that matter? And what about people who
> come from countries that don't have states because they are not
> federations?
>
>> "should have"/"should've" is more
>>proper of course, but it's not terribly uncommon to see people using
>>"should of".
>
> It is very uncommon in English classes and surely marked as a mistake.
> Therefore it shouldn't come as a surprise that the vast majority of
> people won't understand it.
>
>>Either way I never saw a sign saying one must use 100%
>>proper grammar.
>
> True, but correct spelling sure helps the readers. I for my part assumed
> he meant "I should of course said" or something along that line. Missing
> a word is a more frequent typo than replacing it with another word.
Actually, "I should of course said" is still wrong - missing a verb
component - should be: "I should of course have said".
--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:11:21 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jim Cochrane <allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <slrng064d8.1le.allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org>
On 2008-04-13, Mark Seger <Mark.Seger@hp.com> wrote:
> Willem wrote:
>> Jürgen wrote:
>> ) True, but correct spelling sure helps the readers. I for my part assumed
>> ) he meant "I should of course said" or something along that line. Missing
>> ) a word is a more frequent typo than replacing it with another word.
>>
>> Maybe you would be interested to know 'should of' is a typo that is most
>> often made by native English speakers, because it is fonetically close to
>> 'should have'.
>>
>>
>> SaSW, Willem
>
> I wonder what these guys would have to say about this conversation:
> http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/29/on_the_road_looking_for_typos/
> -mark
I heard about those guys on a news segment last week. They've got a
__lot__ of work ahead of them. If they switch media to blogs, wikis,
newsgroups, and other internet media, their work load will be almost
infinite.
--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:18:03 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jim Cochrane <allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <slrng064pp.1le.allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org>
On 2008-04-13, Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> On 2008-04-13, Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "should have"/"should've" is more
>>>proper of course, but it's not terribly uncommon to see people using
>>>"should of".
>
> "should of" is wrong. It's at least as wrong than PERL.
>
>> It is very uncommon in English classes and surely marked as a mistake.
>> Therefore it shouldn't come as a surprise that the vast majority of
>> people won't understand it.
>
> Sadly, while using "should of" is 100% incorrect, lots of undereducated
> Americans believe that's the correct usage. This is a lot like the
> way-too-long argument going on in this thread: common usage (PERL/
> "should of") does not imply *correct* usage, no matter how you choose to
> justify the common use.
>
And, unfortunately, they also believe the following are correct:
- it's instead of its
- its instead of it's
- your instead of you're
- there instead of their
- i.e. (that is) instead of e.g. (for example) [as in: "Evidence of global
warming has become very prevalent lately; i.e., the average
temperature in the region the past year has been 2 degrees above
normal based on data from the past 50 years."]
etc...
And the worst offenders are very often (probably most often) native
English speakers.
--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:58:04 -0500
From: Chris Mattern <syscjm@sumire.gwu.edu>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <slrng06s7s.ad9.syscjm@sumire.gwu.edu>
On 2008-04-14, Jim Cochrane <allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Actually, "I should of course said" is still wrong - missing a verb
> component - should be: "I should of course have said".
>
I think that sentence is also better for a little appropriate punctuation:
"I should, of course, have said". The commas also help guide you to the
correct verb choice, instead of getting confused as to whether "of" is your
verb.
--
Christopher Mattern
NOTICE
Thank you for noticing this new notice
Your noticing it has been noted
And will be reported to the authorities
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:23:56 -0700
From: Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <eigcd5x2rg.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>
On 2008-04-13, Gordon Etly <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
> Keith Keller wrote:
>
>> common usage (PERL/ "should of") does not imply *correct* usage,
>> no matter how you choose to justify the common use.
>
> Except that "PERL" is defined by the primary document, 'perldoc perl',
> which has been the whole point, and what makes the difference.
A definition generally includes the term being defined, does it not?
It doesn't really matter. Whether you want to believe it or not, you
are certainly acting like a troll. If you want people to believe that
you are not, I suggest that you give up the thread, and settle for
correcting those who use PERL incorrectly. You can even include your
spew that "I know it's ''defined'' in perldoc perl, but read perldoc -q
difference" if you want. But it seems unlikely that you'll convince
anyone of your position in this thread, and to persist in the face of
such opposition is definitely troll-like behaviour.
> Also, this isn't an English newsgroup, so what does it matter if one
> doesn't always use perfect English. It's not uncommon to have such
> misuse of language rub-off sometimes, mainly from the common usage in
> general.
It's still wrong, just as it's wrong to say PERL. The reaction for both
should be the same: a polite correction.
--keith
--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:59:09 -0500
From: Chris Mattern <syscjm@sumire.gwu.edu>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <slrng07abt.ad9.syscjm@sumire.gwu.edu>
On 2008-04-14, Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
<snip>
Oh, for God's sake, quit feeding the troll and killfile him like the rest
of us have.
--
Christopher Mattern
NOTICE
Thank you for noticing this new notice
Your noticing it has been noted
And will be reported to the authorities
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:17:43 +0200
From: "Dr.Ruud" <rvtol+news@isolution.nl>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <fu0sa1.vs.1@news.isolution.nl>
Keith Keller schreef:
> "should of" is wrong. It's at least as wrong than PERL.
Aaargh, "as wrong than", I hate that one too much.
BTW, "wronger as" actually has a historical justification, but "as wrong
than" is its evil twin.
--
Affijn, Ruud
"Gewoon is een tijger."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:48:25 -0700
From: Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <a37dd5x8lk.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>
On 2008-04-14, Dr.Ruud <rvtol+news@isolution.nl> wrote:
> Keith Keller schreef:
>
>> "should of" is wrong. It's at least as wrong than PERL.
>
> Aaargh, "as wrong than", I hate that one too much.
Ugh--when I correct grammar, next time I won't make a grammar mistake. :)
I had written "It's even more wrong than PERL" and did
s/even more/at least as/ but forgot to do s/than/as/.
But, really, perl should be improved to do this for me automagically!
--keith
--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:02:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jim Cochrane <allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <slrng0834s.cr3.allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org>
On 2008-04-14, Chris Mattern <syscjm@sumire.gwu.edu> wrote:
> On 2008-04-14, Jim Cochrane <allergic-to-spam@no-spam-allowed.org> wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> Actually, "I should of course said" is still wrong - missing a verb
>> component - should be: "I should of course have said".
>>
> I think that sentence is also better for a little appropriate punctuation:
> "I should, of course, have said". The commas also help guide you to the
> correct verb choice, instead of getting confused as to whether "of" is your
> verb.
Yes, I thought of that after posting; thanks for the correction.
(I better stop replying now before we get too far sidetracked from perl
vs. Perl vs. PERL vs. pERL .......)
--
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:09:35 GMT
From: Tad J McClellan <tadmc@seesig.invalid>
Subject: Re: perl should be improved and perl6
Message-Id: <slrng095ho.uh5.tadmc@tadmc30.sbcglobal.net>
Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> On 2008-04-14, Dr.Ruud <rvtol+news@isolution.nl> wrote:
>> Keith Keller schreef:
>>
>>> "should of" is wrong. It's at least as wrong than PERL.
>>
>> Aaargh, "as wrong than", I hate that one too much.
>
> Ugh--when I correct grammar, next time I won't make a grammar mistake. :)
> I had written "It's even more wrong than PERL" and did
> s/even more/at least as/ but forgot to do s/than/as/.
>
> But, really, perl should be improved to do this for me automagically!
The "WWIM" capability will be added in perl8.
--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.noitatibaher\100cmdat/"
------------------------------
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 1444
***************************************
