[30202] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 1445 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Tue Apr 15 16:06:20 2008
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:06:11 -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: 1445
Today's topics:
PERL to mean what 'perldoc perl' says is wrong? (was: R <get@bentsys.com>
Re: PERL to mean what 'perldoc perl' says is wrong? (wa <glennj@ncf.ca>
Re: PERL to mean what 'perldoc perl' says is wrong? (wa <syscjm@sumire.gwu.edu>
Re: PERL to mean what 'perldoc perl' says is wrong? (wa <get@bentsys.com>
Re: PERL to mean what 'perldoc perl' says is wrong? (wa <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Re: PERL to mean what 'perldoc perl' says is wrong? (wa <achimpeters@gmx.de>
Re: PERL to mean what 'perldoc perl' says is wrong? (wa <RedGrittyBrick@SpamWeary.foo>
Re: PERL to mean what 'perldoc perl' says is wrong? <cwilbur@chromatico.net>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:37:37 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: PERL to mean what 'perldoc perl' says is wrong? (was: Re: perl should be improved and perl6)
Message-Id: <66im83F2ksbvvU1@mid.individual.net>
Jim Cochrane wrote:
> 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 .......)
Just for the record, that was never my plight. But alas it is no use, I
see, given of all the closed-mindedness abound; what ever happened to
free thinking? Not one soul had actually addressed the question itself:
why is it wrong to use PERL if 'perldoc perl' gives it a meaning that
can be shortened to just "PERL"? I don't expect a straight answer given
what's already transpired, and this is the last time I will ask it.
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: 15 Apr 2008 13:09:15 GMT
From: Glenn Jackman <glennj@ncf.ca>
Subject: Re: PERL to mean what 'perldoc perl' says is wrong? (was: Re: perl should be improved and perl6)
Message-Id: <slrng09a7r.kta.glennj@smeagol.ncf.ca>
At 2008-04-14 11:37PM, "Gordon Etly" wrote:
> why is it wrong to use PERL if 'perldoc perl' gives it a meaning that
> can be shortened to just "PERL"? I don't expect a straight answer given
> what's already transpired, and this is the last time I will ask it.
That's too bad. It was very entertaining watching the struggle between
the immovable object and the irresistable force. You can decide who
fits which role.
--
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: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:41:43 -0500
From: Chris Mattern <syscjm@sumire.gwu.edu>
Subject: Re: PERL to mean what 'perldoc perl' says is wrong? (was: Re: perl should be improved and perl6)
Message-Id: <slrng09fl7.bjp.syscjm@sumire.gwu.edu>
On 2008-04-15, Achim Peters <achimpeters@gmx.de> wrote:
> Gordon Etly schrieb:
>> Jim Cochrane wrote:
>>> (I better stop replying now before we get too far sidetracked from
>>> perl vs. Perl vs. PERL vs. pERL .......)
>>
>>
>> Just for the record, that was never my plight. But alas it is no use, I
>> see, given of all the closed-mindedness abound; what ever happened to
>> free thinking? Not one soul had actually addressed the question itself:
>> why is it wrong to use PERL if 'perldoc perl' gives it a meaning that
>> can be shortened to just "PERL"?
>
> Not only that. With 'perldoc perl' in perl 5.8.2 I indeed do get three
> different spellings ("perl", "Perl", _and_ "PERL"):
>
>| PERL(1) perl v5.8.2 (2004-02-16) PERL(1)
>|
> [...]
>|
>| perl - [...]
>|
>| If you're new to Perl, [...]
>
> ;-)
>
No, the usage of "perl" and "Perl" is correct. "perl" refers to
the program, which is what the first line is describing. "Perl"
means the language in the abstract, which is what the second line
is talking about (it's not worried about whether you're new to
5.8.2, but about whether you're new to Perl as a whole).
--
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 08:40:49 -0700
From: "Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com>
Subject: Re: PERL to mean what 'perldoc perl' says is wrong? (was: Re: perl should be improved and perl6)
Message-Id: <66k0k3F2kd4btU1@mid.individual.net>
Chris Mattern wrote:
> On 2008-04-15, Achim Peters <achimpeters@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Gordon Etly schrieb:
>>> Jim Cochrane wrote:
>>>> (I better stop replying now before we get too far sidetracked from
>>>> perl vs. Perl vs. PERL vs. pERL .......)
>>>
>>>
>>> Just for the record, that was never my plight. But alas it is no
>>> use, I see, given of all the closed-mindedness abound; what ever
>>> happened to free thinking? Not one soul had actually addressed the
>>> question itself: why is it wrong to use PERL if 'perldoc perl'
>>> gives it a meaning that can be shortened to just "PERL"?
>>
>> Not only that. With 'perldoc perl' in perl 5.8.2 I indeed do get
>> three different spellings ("perl", "Perl", _and_ "PERL"):
>>
>>> PERL(1) perl v5.8.2 (2004-02-16)
>>> PERL(1)
>>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> perl - [...]
>>>
>>> If you're new to Perl, [...]
>>
>> ;-)
>>
> No, the usage of "perl" and "Perl" is correct. "perl" refers to
> the program, which is what the first line is describing. "Perl"
> means the language in the abstract, which is what the second line
> is talking about
Yes, we all know that, and that is not the point I have tried to make.
What is so wrong with adding to that list,
"PERL" refers to "Practical Extraction and Report Language" ?
That IS how acronyms work, whether people like you want to admit it or
not.
--
G.Etly
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:41:37 GMT
From: Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: PERL to mean what 'perldoc perl' says is wrong? (was: Re: perl should be improved and perl6)
Message-Id: <88m904t1l1es8kn8oin0p9copcurm50fit@4ax.com>
"Gordon Etly" <get@bentsys.com> wrote:
>What is so wrong with adding to that list,
>
> "PERL" refers to "Practical Extraction and Report Language" ?
Is there a particular reason, why you prefer that expansion over Larry's
own suggestion "Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister"?
>That IS how acronyms work, whether people like you want to admit it or
>not.
Oh, and BTW: acronyms work exactly the opposite direction: You got a
name, take the leading letters, and thus create a new artificial word.
That would be an acronym.
Having an artificial word and trying match the lead letters of a
sequence of words to it is not an acronym but a backronym.
jue
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:25:24 +0200
From: Achim Peters <achimpeters@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: PERL to mean what 'perldoc perl' says is wrong? (was: Re: perl should be improved and perl6)
Message-Id: <4804ACC4.6020101@gmx.de>
Gordon Etly schrieb:
> Jim Cochrane wrote:
>> (I better stop replying now before we get too far sidetracked from
>> perl vs. Perl vs. PERL vs. pERL .......)
>
>
> Just for the record, that was never my plight. But alas it is no use, I
> see, given of all the closed-mindedness abound; what ever happened to
> free thinking? Not one soul had actually addressed the question itself:
> why is it wrong to use PERL if 'perldoc perl' gives it a meaning that
> can be shortened to just "PERL"?
Not only that. With 'perldoc perl' in perl 5.8.2 I indeed do get three
different spellings ("perl", "Perl", _and_ "PERL"):
| PERL(1) perl v5.8.2 (2004-02-16) PERL(1)
|
[...]
|
| perl - [...]
|
| If you're new to Perl, [...]
;-)
Bye
Achim
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:07:57 +0100
From: RedGrittyBrick <RedGrittyBrick@SpamWeary.foo>
Subject: Re: PERL to mean what 'perldoc perl' says is wrong? (was: Re: perl should be improved and perl6)
Message-Id: <4804d2de$0$32054$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>
Achim Peters wrote:
> With 'perldoc perl' in perl 5.8.2 I indeed do get three
> different spellings ("perl", "Perl", _and_ "PERL"):
>
> | PERL(1) perl v5.8.2 (2004-02-16) PERL(1)
> |
> [...]
> |
> | perl - [...]
> |
> | If you're new to Perl, [...]
>
> ;-)
>
PYTHON(1)
NAME
python - an interpreted ...
...
Python is an interpreted ...
Every man page on this particular Linux system has the program name in
all-capitals in the page heading, regardless of whether the name is an
abbreviation of any sort. I wouldn't infer anything from that.
--
RGB
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:04:11 -0400
From: Charlton Wilbur <cwilbur@chromatico.net>
Subject: Re: PERL to mean what 'perldoc perl' says is wrong?
Message-Id: <86lk3fkq2c.fsf@mithril.chromatico.net>
>>>>> "GE" == Gordon Etly <get@bentsys.com> writes:
GE> Yes, we all know that, and that is not the point I have tried
GE> to make.
GE> What is so wrong with adding to that list,
GE> "PERL" refers to "Practical Extraction and Report Language"
GE> ?
It does not reflect the usage patterns of the core Perl developers or
Perl experts. The correct usage and the rationale behind it are found
in the Perl FAQ, and no amont of railing and rationalization on your
part will change either.
Simply put: using 'PERL' marks you as someone clueless and ignorant;
if by chance you aren't clueless and ignorant, you're stubborn and
resistant to correction. There's little to be gained by interactions
with such people.
So, your choice is to continue insisting on the validity of 'PERL,'
and wind up in more and more killfiles; or to conform to community
standards and usages. The latter seems more satisfying, no doubt, but
when you do need help, if you have chosen that path, you're much less
likely to get help. Except from other cranks and novices, of course,
but that's not the help you generally want.
GE> That IS how acronyms work, whether people like you want to
GE> admit it or not.
And people often make inferences about the education level, class, and
status of a person from his or her use of language. You've had it
pointed out that one of your usages marks you as either a novice or a
crank; you can continue using it if you see fit, but it is a
deliberate choice at this point and no longer an error.
There are other windmills at which it is more fun to tilt, no doubt.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@chromatico.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 1445
***************************************
