[30825] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2070 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Sun Dec 21 03:14:20 2008
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:14:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Sun, 21 Dec 2008 Volume: 11 Number: 2070
Today's topics:
Re: Rounding up in perl <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org>
Re: Rounding up in perl <tim@burlyhost.com>
Re: Rounding up in perl <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org>
Re: Rounding up in perl <tim@burlyhost.com>
Re: Rounding up in perl sln@netherlands.com
Re: Rounding up in perl <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org>
Re: Rounding up in perl <tim@burlyhost.com>
Re: Rounding up in perl <tim@burlyhost.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:40:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org>
Subject: Re: Rounding up in perl
Message-Id: <gijvon$16c$1@agate.berkeley.edu>
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT [per weedlist] sent to
Tim Greer
<tim@burlyhost.com>], who wrote in article <wjY2l.59529$yB4.50027@newsfe07.iad>:
> Nevertheless, someone I actually used to respect for their contributions
> has resorted to acting like this and aligning their logic with a poster
> that doesn't know what the /x modifer if for. Food for thought (not
> that I expect it to matter).
Yes, do REALLY think about it, please.
I would GLADLY "align" my logic with sln/xee/godzilla/whoever as far
as what they say in a particular moment makes sense. Likewise in the
opposite direction.
Hope this helps,
Ilya
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:43:55 -0800
From: Tim Greer <tim@burlyhost.com>
Subject: Re: Rounding up in perl
Message-Id: <%qf3l.18819$iY3.17278@newsfe14.iad>
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> [A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT [per weedlist] sent to
> Tim Greer
> <tim@burlyhost.com>], who wrote in article
> <wjY2l.59529$yB4.50027@newsfe07.iad>:
>> Nevertheless, someone I actually used to respect for their
>> contributions has resorted to acting like this and aligning their
>> logic with a poster
>> that doesn't know what the /x modifer if for. Food for thought (not
>> that I expect it to matter).
>
> Yes, do REALLY think about it, please.
>
> I would GLADLY "align" my logic with sln/xee/godzilla/whoever as far
> as what they say in a particular moment makes sense. Likewise in the
> opposite direction.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Ilya
I don't fault you at all, if you agree with them, I'd do the same.
Perhaps I wasn't clear, or perhaps I'm just on the other side of the
fence on this one. No matter though. Thanks.
--
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:50:20 +0000 (UTC)
From: Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org>
Subject: Re: Rounding up in perl
Message-Id: <gik0bs$1cn$1@agate.berkeley.edu>
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT [per weedlist] sent to
Tim Greer
<tim@burlyhost.com>], who wrote in article <0d93l.48382$R43.3509@newsfe08.iad>:
> > It's not that int doesn't round, or that
> > isn't dependable, it just usually isn't the rounding function you
> > want.
> And that is what I said previously, it's not probably want you want,
> since it's intent is to truncate (even if that is a method used for
> rounding),
When posting on Usenet, one should keep in mind that there is a
certain proportion of readers who are ESP-challenged. Maybe what you
said was what you claim; but what is important is what you WROTE.
> and I think that it's not as dependable as other solutions,
Could you please expand on this word "dependable" you use so much in
this thread? I puzzle over which particular meaning you associate
with this word in the context of int()?
Thanks,
Ilya
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 16:03:01 -0800
From: Tim Greer <tim@burlyhost.com>
Subject: Re: Rounding up in perl
Message-Id: <XIf3l.186$fc3.182@newsfe02.iad>
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> [A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT [per weedlist] sent to
> Tim Greer
> <tim@burlyhost.com>], who wrote in article
> <0d93l.48382$R43.3509@newsfe08.iad>:
>> > It's not that int doesn't round, or that
>> > isn't dependable, it just usually isn't the rounding function you
>> > want.
>
>> And that is what I said previously, it's not probably want you want,
>> since it's intent is to truncate (even if that is a method used for
>> rounding),
>
> When posting on Usenet, one should keep in mind that there is a
> certain proportion of readers who are ESP-challenged. Maybe what you
> said was what you claim; but what is important is what you WROTE.
Reading what someone wrote is also important. Perhaps my wording was
poor in some responses, but I did make it clear that while you can use
it for rounding, it's probably not the best method, since it's actually
truncation. If it works within the confines of your approach or goal,
then no harm and no foul.
>> and I think that it's not as dependable as other solutions,
>
> Could you please expand on this word "dependable" you use so much in
> this thread?
I suppose that was a poorly used term in the capacity in which I
intended it to convey. In other words, I wouldn't call sln's solution
"dependable" (I mentioned the poor use regarding his example, and I
guess that was confusing, as a couple of people thought that meant I
said that int() couldn't be used as a method of rounding -- it can,
it's just probably not a good idea -- unless it does work "well enough"
for what your intended goal is).
I said that while int() can be used to round, that is not its intended
design (it is to truncate). In reply, you seemed to insist that int()
was indeed "intended" to round, but maybe I misread that? Anyway,
we're not getting anywhere new with this, so please disregard it. If I
misunderstood, I apologize.
--
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 01:20:01 GMT
From: sln@netherlands.com
Subject: Re: Rounding up in perl
Message-Id: <u76rk4di5okbujpno6rl0c5386i2245mks@4ax.com>
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:58:51 -0800, Tim Greer <tim@burlyhost.com> wrote:
>Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
>
>> [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
>
>There's no need for the complimentary Cc. I read it here, I don't need
>to read it in email as well. Thanks.
>
>> Tim Greer
>> <tim@burlyhost.com>], who wrote in article
>> <N3V2l.55503$v37.39942@newsfe01.iad>:
>>> >> I didn't create it, I didn't write the documentation about it.
>>
>>> > So do it.
>>
>>> Do what? Go back in time and create it or go back in time and write
>>> the documention?
>>
>> Write correct documentation...
>
>You're welcome to write the correct documentation yourself, since you
>disagree with it.
>
>>> >> While I'm sure one could work with said function to do rounding,
>>> >
>>> > int() rounds. Period.
>>
>>> Just not as well as other methods.
>>
>> Exactly as well as any other rounding methed.
>
>Except it doesn't round up as a value to an integer as well as sprintf,
>and the fact that truncation isn't "exactly" rounding.
>
>>> >> it's not intended to round
>>
>>> > It is.
>>
>>> Just not accurately in every circumstance
>>
>> int() gives a precise answer. By definition, a precise (and correct
>> ;-) answer can't be "non-accurate".
>
>See the documentation. If you disagree with it, submit something that's
>correct. Argue semantics all you like, it truncates, it doesn't round.
>I suppose if you think that's the same effect, I can't help.
>
>>> (where its own documentation recommends against using it)
>>
>> Documentation is absolutely wrong.
>
>Why not submit something that's correct?
>
>>> >> and suffers from side effects.
>>
>>> > There is no side effects.
>>
>>> According to the documentation it does.
>>
>> Nevertheless.
>>
>
>Nevertheless, someone I actually used to respect for their contributions
>has resorted to acting like this and aligning their logic with a poster
>that doesn't know what the /x modifer if for. Food for thought (not
>that I expect it to matter).
Btw, I know what /x is for. If I wan't to tell you how my long ass
regular expression is used I will. If not I won't. Simple as that.
Otherwise, figure it out for yourself.
sln
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:01:45 +0000 (UTC)
From: Ilya Zakharevich <nospam-abuse@ilyaz.org>
Subject: Re: Rounding up in perl
Message-Id: <gikbip$4kn$1@agate.berkeley.edu>
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT [per weedlist] sent to
Tim Greer
<tim@burlyhost.com>], who wrote in article <XIf3l.186$fc3.182@newsfe02.iad>:
> > When posting on Usenet, one should keep in mind that there is a
> > certain proportion of readers who are ESP-challenged. Maybe what you
> > said was what you claim; but what is important is what you WROTE.
> Reading what someone wrote is also important.
Very true; unfortunately, on Usenet one must expect that only
negligible percentage of readers would do it. (Especially of you
expect them to disregard what is written explicitly, and somehow read
the meaning between the lines. ;-)
> Perhaps my wording was poor in some responses,
This is why many people jumped in to fix it. Your postings remain
available for googling; if they remain unfixed, they would forever add
"insult by confirming" the permanent injury which is the current Perl docs...
> I suppose that was a poorly used term in the capacity in which I
> intended it to convey. In other words, I wouldn't call sln's solution
> "dependable" (I mentioned the poor use regarding his example, and I
> guess that was confusing, as a couple of people thought that meant I
> said that int() couldn't be used as a method of rounding -- it can,
> it's just probably not a good idea -- unless it does work "well enough"
> for what your intended goal is).
Hmm, it looks like you support the school of "programming by voodoo".
"Try several random chunks of code, and leave the one which gives
results most similar to the target of the exercise." :-(
From my point of view, there are only two types of solutions: correct
ones, and incorrect ones. [Of course, all the Perl stuff in the first
category may still be made unusable by bugs in perl; the additional
complication is that as practice shows, the first category is empty.
;-) :-(]
> In reply, you seemed to insist that int() was indeed "intended" to
> round, but maybe I misread that?
It looks like you advocate "reading", but are still guilty of the
opposite. Have not it been beaten to death yet that
the intent of int() is to round to zero (often called "truncation");
rounding to zero is one of the forms of rounding?
Probably a linguistic problem: you may just think that "rounding" is a
much less rich notion than it is in reality. There are MANY different
context where rounding is called for, and each context requires its
own semantic; but 5 different semantics (with 2..3 subflavors) are the
most often used...
Yours,
Ilya
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:20:00 -0800
From: Tim Greer <tim@burlyhost.com>
Subject: Re: Rounding up in perl
Message-Id: <4mk3l.7081$E46.2324@newsfe21.iad>
sln@netherlands.com wrote:
> Btw, I know what /x is for. If I wan't to tell you how my long ass
> regular expression is used I will. If not I won't. Simple as that.
> Otherwise, figure it out for yourself.
I know exactly what it's doing. The fact you should use the /x modifier
is an indication of your lack of understanding your own regex, not
mine.
--
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:26:58 -0800
From: Tim Greer <tim@burlyhost.com>
Subject: Re: Rounding up in perl
Message-Id: <Dsk3l.830$X05.431@newsfe03.iad>
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> [A complimentary Cc of this posting was NOT [per weedlist] sent to
> Tim Greer
> <tim@burlyhost.com>], who wrote in article
> <XIf3l.186$fc3.182@newsfe02.iad>:
>> > When posting on Usenet, one should keep in mind that there is a
>> > certain proportion of readers who are ESP-challenged. Maybe what
>> > you said was what you claim; but what is important is what you
>> > WROTE.
>
>> Reading what someone wrote is also important.
>
> Very true; unfortunately, on Usenet one must expect that only
> negligible percentage of readers would do it. (Especially of you
> expect them to disregard what is written explicitly, and somehow read
> the meaning between the lines. ;-)
If you mean "between the lines" as in when I followed up and
specifically clarified not being taken into account, because it
wouldn't justify continuing marking snide remarks, yes.
>> Perhaps my wording was poor in some responses,
>
> This is why many people jumped in to fix it.
I think just you (and sln).
> Your postings remain
> available for googling;
Yes.
> if they remain unfixed, they would forever add
> "insult by confirming" the permanent injury which is the current Perl
> docs...
Not really.
>> I suppose that was a poorly used term in the capacity in which I
>> intended it to convey. In other words, I wouldn't call sln's
>> solution "dependable" (I mentioned the poor use regarding his
>> example, and I guess that was confusing, as a couple of people
>> thought that meant I said that int() couldn't be used as a method of
>> rounding -- it can, it's just probably not a good idea -- unless it
>> does work "well enough" for what your intended goal is).
>
> Hmm, it looks like you support the school of "programming by voodoo".
> "Try several random chunks of code, and leave the one which gives
> results most similar to the target of the exercise." :-(
Not really.
> From my point of view, there are only two types of solutions: correct
> ones, and incorrect ones. [Of course, all the Perl stuff in the first
> category may still be made unusable by bugs in perl; the additional
> complication is that as practice shows, the first category is empty.
> ;-) :-(]
>
>> In reply, you seemed to insist that int() was indeed "intended" to
>> round, but maybe I misread that?
>
> It looks like you advocate "reading", but are still guilty of the
> opposite. Have not it been beaten to death yet that
>
> the intent of int() is to round to zero (often called "truncation");
>
> rounding to zero is one of the forms of rounding?
>
> Probably a linguistic problem: you may just think that "rounding" is a
> much less rich notion than it is in reality. There are MANY different
> context where rounding is called for, and each context requires its
> own semantic; but 5 different semantics (with 2..3 subflavors) are the
> most often used...
>
Saying one thing is intended for another thing than it actually is,
because you can use it for that other thing, isn't correct logic in my
view. I honestly don't care, it was when sln insisted it is intended
*for* rounding. It is to truncate, it can be used to round, it is a
method of doing so. I've been very clear, so you know by now what I
meant, even if you misunderstood. That should really be the end of it,
unless you enjoy arguing. I don't, and you mentioned yourself that it
could be brought back up again. I have no desire to. I'm not even
seeing where the disagreement was if we both agree it can be used to
round. Who cares what the technical terms we disagree about its
intended purpose is, or how we word it or use it to mean one thing or
the other. I don't. Surely you don't either, so let's end it (either
way, I'm done, since there's nothing more to say)...
--
Tim Greer, CEO/Founder/CTO, BurlyHost.com, Inc.
Shared Hosting, Reseller Hosting, Dedicated & Semi-Dedicated servers
and Custom Hosting. 24/7 support, 30 day guarantee, secure servers.
Industry's most experienced staff! -- Web Hosting With Muscle!
------------------------------
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 2070
***************************************
