[31227] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2472 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Thu Jun 11 16:09:45 2009
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:09:09 -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 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 Volume: 11 Number: 2472
Today's topics:
Re: compare two booleans for equality? <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
Re: compare two booleans for equality? sln@netherlands.com
Re: compare two booleans for equality? sln@netherlands.com
Re: compare two booleans for equality? <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
Re: compare two booleans for equality? sln@netherlands.com
Re: compare two booleans for equality? sln@netherlands.com
Re: compare two booleans for equality? <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Re: compare two booleans for equality? sln@netherlands.com
Re: compare two booleans for equality? sln@netherlands.com
Re: FAQ 4.59 How can I know how many entries are in a h <tzz@lifelogs.com>
parse perl expression <michaelgang@gmail.com>
Re: parse perl expression sln@netherlands.com
Re: parse perl expression <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
Re: parse perl expression <michaelgang@gmail.com>
upgrade strwaberry perl <michaelgang@gmail.com>
Re: upgrade strwaberry perl <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
Re: What happened to perl doc <klausfpga@gmail.com>
Re: What happened to perl doc <klausfpga@gmail.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:47:17 +0100
From: bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
Subject: Re: compare two booleans for equality?
Message-Id: <QqadnZjSweY4T63XnZ2dnUVZ8qti4p2d@brightview.co.uk>
Ben Morrow wrote:
>> So - what's a nice way of comparing the "truth" of two
>> scalars, as opposed to (just) comparing the scalars?
>
> One way would be
>
> unless ($condition1 xor $condition2) {
>
>
> The standard idiom for boolifying is '!!'. So you could also use
>
> if (!!$condition1 == !!$condition2) {
>
> if you're unhappy with the idea of xors.
Ah - two excellent solutions - thanks to all.
BugBear
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:28:39 -0700
From: sln@netherlands.com
Subject: Re: compare two booleans for equality?
Message-Id: <t4c235dev0jsuqe78vh3e0lcvbt2q0ausg@4ax.com>
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:33:59 -0700, sln@netherlands.com wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:09:46 -0400, Charlton Wilbur <cwilbur@chromatico.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "bugbear" == bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> writes:
>>
>> bugbear> So - what's a nice way of comparing the "truth" of two
>> bugbear> scalars, as opposed to (just) comparing the scalars?
>>
>>if ($foo && $bar or !$foo && !$bar) probably makes your intent clearest.
>>
>>if (!!$foo == !!$bar) is a trick I learned back in my C days.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> $foo == $bar
>
>They changed it in C++
>
>-sln
My bad, your right, $foo as a range of values,
!!$foo boolifies. Sorry. Nice trick.
-sln
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:29:49 -0700
From: sln@netherlands.com
Subject: Re: compare two booleans for equality?
Message-Id: <t6c235pde8ot5otl5u0nn57nkreqdpihg4@4ax.com>
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:33:59 -0700, sln@netherlands.com wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:09:46 -0400, Charlton Wilbur <cwilbur@chromatico.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "bugbear" == bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> writes:
>>
>> bugbear> So - what's a nice way of comparing the "truth" of two
>> bugbear> scalars, as opposed to (just) comparing the scalars?
>>
>>if ($foo && $bar or !$foo && !$bar) probably makes your intent clearest.
>>
>>if (!!$foo == !!$bar) is a trick I learned back in my C days.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> $foo == $bar
>
>They changed it in C++
>
>-sln
My bad, your right, $foo as a range of values,
!!$foo boolifies. Sorry. Nice trick.
-sln
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:34:01 +0100
From: bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
Subject: Re: compare two booleans for equality?
Message-Id: <Iu6dnX158ctkrKzXnZ2dnUVZ8iRi4p2d@brightview.co.uk>
sln@netherlands.com wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:48:58 +0100, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>> But this doesn't do what I want. There's a wide
>> range of legal (and useful) values for the scalars,
>> and they might well be different, but all represent "truth"
>> or "falsehood".
>>
> The most modern, readable way of doing it is
>
> Truth:
> if ( condition1 && condition1 == condition2)
>
> False:
> if ( !condition1 && condition1 == condition2)
>
> Either one, but not both.
See the rest of the thread!
BugBear
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:35:01 -0700
From: sln@netherlands.com
Subject: Re: compare two booleans for equality?
Message-Id: <vec235ln3cesid289ng8o3q3mq2cdg7062@4ax.com>
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:33:59 -0700, sln@netherlands.com wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:09:46 -0400, Charlton Wilbur <cwilbur@chromatico.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "bugbear" == bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> writes:
>>
>> bugbear> So - what's a nice way of comparing the "truth" of two
>> bugbear> scalars, as opposed to (just) comparing the scalars?
>>
>>if ($foo && $bar or !$foo && !$bar) probably makes your intent clearest.
>>
>>if (!!$foo == !!$bar) is a trick I learned back in my C days.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> $foo == $bar
>
>They changed it in C++
>
>-sln
(trying to resend this, sent this yesterday but news service got
header screwed up)
My bad, your right, $foo as a range of values,
!!$foo boolifies. Sorry. Nice trick.
-sln
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:46:09 -0700
From: sln@netherlands.com
Subject: Re: compare two booleans for equality?
Message-Id: <j2d2351ko6di0dcdg3qk1gj6bckb08b9ld@4ax.com>
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:34:01 +0100, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>sln@netherlands.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:48:58 +0100, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>
>>> But this doesn't do what I want. There's a wide
>>> range of legal (and useful) values for the scalars,
>>> and they might well be different, but all represent "truth"
>>> or "falsehood".
>>>
>> The most modern, readable way of doing it is
>>
>> Truth:
>> if ( condition1 && condition1 == condition2)
>>
>> False:
>> if ( !condition1 && condition1 == condition2)
>>
>> Either one, but not both.
>
>See the rest of the thread!
>
> BugBear
Yeah. I'll try to post to your response what I sent yesterday.
It was posted to the wrong thread (from 2007).
>On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:09:46 -0400, Charlton Wilbur <cwilbur@chromatico.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> "bugbear" == bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> writes:
>>
>> bugbear> So - what's a nice way of comparing the "truth" of two
>> bugbear> scalars, as opposed to (just) comparing the scalars?
>>
>>if ($foo && $bar or !$foo && !$bar) probably makes your intent clearest.
>>
>>if (!!$foo == !!$bar) is a trick I learned back in my C days.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> $foo == $bar
>
>They changed it in C++
>
>-sln
My bad, your right, $foo as a range of values,
!!$foo boolifies. Sorry. Nice trick.
-sln
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:20:24 -0700
From: Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: compare two booleans for equality?
Message-Id: <t8e235lvvqangn60iu78ii29k89a4fe1af@4ax.com>
bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
[Replying to your post because Mr. sln is a permanent resident in my
killfile]
>sln@netherlands.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:48:58 +0100, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>
>>> But this doesn't do what I want. There's a wide
>>> range of legal (and useful) values for the scalars,
>>> and they might well be different, but all represent "truth"
>>> or "falsehood".
>>>
>> The most modern, readable way of doing it is
>>
>> Truth:
>> if ( condition1 && condition1 == condition2)
>>
>> False:
>> if ( !condition1 && condition1 == condition2)
If this is supposed to be Perl code, then it will yield a "Bareword not
allowed" error under strictures.
If this is supposed to be pseudo-code, then you may want to state the
semantic and precedence rules of your operators.
Assuming same semantic and precedence as in Perl, then the second line
would be equal to
if ( (!condition1) &&
(condition1 == condition2)
)
where the OP already stated that the numerical equal (==) doesn't work
for boolean values because logical true and false can be represented by
numerous different scalar values. Actually it was this very observation
that started the whole thread.
Of course I don't expect you to understand any of this.
jue
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:28:25 -0700
From: sln@netherlands.com
Subject: Re: compare two booleans for equality?
Message-Id: <5ok235dpfcp2h99culobknqkauikqi24np@4ax.com>
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:20:24 -0700, Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>[Replying to your post because Mr. sln is a permanent resident in my
>killfile]
>>sln@netherlands.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:48:58 +0100, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But this doesn't do what I want. There's a wide
>>>> range of legal (and useful) values for the scalars,
>>>> and they might well be different, but all represent "truth"
>>>> or "falsehood".
>>>>
>>> The most modern, readable way of doing it is
>>>
>>> Truth:
>>> if ( condition1 && condition1 == condition2)
>>>
>>> False:
>>> if ( !condition1 && condition1 == condition2)
>
>If this is supposed to be Perl code, then it will yield a "Bareword not
>allowed" error under strictures.
>
>If this is supposed to be pseudo-code, then you may want to state the
>semantic and precedence rules of your operators.
>Assuming same semantic and precedence as in Perl, then the second line
>would be equal to
>
>if ( (!condition1) &&
> (condition1 == condition2)
> )
>
>where the OP already stated that the numerical equal (==) doesn't work
>for boolean values because logical true and false can be represented by
>numerous different scalar values. Actually it was this very observation
>that started the whole thread.
>
>Of course I don't expect you to understand any of this.
>
>jue
Thanks for pointing out the precedence parenth's, its the same as in pseudo-code btw.
Although there is no need to wrap (!conditiona1) in parenths.
It doesen't matter Perl or C (or most any language with logicals). Most
have notion of a range of 'true/false', even though some are more type
constrained (like won't compile in C++).
Yes, I thought the OP already went through his 'boolean' machine, thats why I
used his variable names in pseudo-code.
The fact of the matter is, its not enough to know that varaiables are equal
or not equal in a boolean sense in everyday use. That doesen't tell you anything
at all.
So (!$foo == !$bar) tells you that they are equivalent boolean wise.
My point is it can take it to a higher, more usefull level, by determining
thier boolean equavalence and truth or falsehood.
So ( $foo && (!$foo == !bar) ) is the fastest way to determine (code execution wise)
if they are BOTH TRUE. If $foo is false, the inner boolean expression won't even
be executed. If you need to know if they are TRUE, this is how its done.
In application coding, the single condition that factors out other conditions
is the one thats put up front. This significantly decreases execution time.
Yeah, I know people on this board tend to speak with code using examples.
Here, below I am going to be guilty of it myself in posting this example.
People assume others will use stream-lined code, but I don't think so.
I fear that begginners here will actually start writing like some of
these exaggerated examples.
Oh well, "I don't expect you to understand any of this" ?
-sln
---------------
use strict;
use warnings;
my @sample = (
0,0 ,
1,1 ,
'',0 ,
'this','that',
-1,'',
);
while (my ($s1,$s2) = splice (@sample,0,2))
{
if ( !$s1 == !$s2 ) {
print "\n'$s1' ~ '$s2' = true: ";
} else {
print "\n'$s1' ~ '$s2' = false: ";
}
if ( $s1 && (!$s1 == !$s2) ) {
print ": Both are TRUE";
}
if ( !$s1 && (!$s1 == !$s2) ) {
print ": Both are FALSE";
}
}
print "\n";
__END__
'0' ~ '0' = true: : Both are FALSE
'1' ~ '1' = true: : Both are TRUE
'' ~ '0' = true: : Both are FALSE
'this' ~ 'that' = true: : Both are TRUE
'-1' ~ '' = false:
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:36:01 -0700
From: sln@netherlands.com
Subject: Re: compare two booleans for equality?
Message-Id: <51n235ti22v8d6vedn5lohpkgutj5fhql0@4ax.com>
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:47:17 +0100, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>Ben Morrow wrote:
>>> So - what's a nice way of comparing the "truth" of two
>>> scalars, as opposed to (just) comparing the scalars?
>>
>> One way would be
>>
>> unless ($condition1 xor $condition2) {
>>
>>
>
>
>> The standard idiom for boolifying is '!!'. So you could also use
>>
>> if (!!$condition1 == !!$condition2) {
>>
>> if you're unhappy with the idea of xors.
>
>
>Ah - two excellent solutions - thanks to all.
>
> BugBear
Actually, it is the same as !condition1 == !condition2
However it doesen't tell you if either condition is true or false
and therefore doesen't tell you anything at all really.
-sln
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:46:38 -0500
From: Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>
Subject: Re: FAQ 4.59 How can I know how many entries are in a hash?
Message-Id: <878wjyltf5.fsf@lifelogs.com>
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:56:56 -0700 Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> wrote:
JG> In article <87vdn3hi1s.fsf@jidanni.org>, <jidanni@jidanni.org> wrote:
>> Note also the slight of hand with "elements" becoming "keys", and also
>> "entire" vs. top level. Wish somebody would fix it. Not newbie me.:
>> $ perldoc -f length
>> ...Note that this cannot be used on an entire array or hash to find out
>> how many elements these have. For that, use "scalar @array" and
>> "scalar keys %hash" respectively.
JG> What do you think needs fixing in that statement?
JG> The "elements" here refers to members of either an array or a hash.
JG> Hash elements have (key,value) pairs, so the number of elements is the
JG> number of keys, and the number of elements is given by 'scalar keys
JG> %hash'. Arrays don't have keys, so the number of elements is given by
JG> 'scalar @array'.
JG> There is no 'slight of hand', just the use of the 'keys' operator to
JG> find the number of 'elements' in a hash.
The documentation tries to be brief and merges "hash elements" with
"array elements," which can be confusing to an inexperienced programmer.
My suggestion, FWIW (also eliminates "respectively" which is always
confusing, and some other minor tweaks):
length Returns the length in *characters* of the value of EXPR. If EXPR
is omitted, returns length of $_. Note that this cannot be used
on an entire array or hash to find out how many elements these
have. For that, use "scalar @array" and "scalar keys %hash"
respectively.
should be
length Returns the length in *characters* of the value of EXPR. If
EXPR is omitted, returns length of $_. Note that this cannot
be used directly on an entire array or hash to find their
size. Use "scalar @array" to count array elements and "scalar
keys %hash" to count hash entries.
Ted
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: david <michaelgang@gmail.com>
Subject: parse perl expression
Message-Id: <199f6269-05a1-42ae-aae4-3383e615f451@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
Hi all,
I have an perl expression which i have to examine (not to run).
for example:
($obj->fun1(x,y,z) || ($obj->fun2(x,y,z) && $obj->fun3('a') || ($obj-
>fun4 && $obj->fun5))
(Please don't count the number of parentheses :-).)
My question is how could i parse this expression so that i'll get a
list like this
$obj->fun1(x,y,z),
$obj->fun2(x,y,z)
$obj->fun3('a')
$obj->fun4
$obj->fun5
The hierarchy is less important. I need just the operators.
I fear to use regexps (i know them but i am not a wizard in it)
because in the arguments there could be also parentheses.
What do you think ?
Thanks a lot,
David
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:56:24 -0700
From: sln@netherlands.com
Subject: Re: parse perl expression
Message-Id: <mdd235pl1e5i2ol1f66l0mbp0v4t7jqkh0@4ax.com>
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:42:06 -0700 (PDT), david <michaelgang@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I have an perl expression which i have to examine (not to run).
>
>for example:
>
>($obj->fun1(x,y,z) || ($obj->fun2(x,y,z) && $obj->fun3('a') || ($obj-
>>fun4 && $obj->fun5))
>(Please don't count the number of parentheses :-).)
>
>My question is how could i parse this expression so that i'll get a
>list like this
>
>$obj->fun1(x,y,z),
>$obj->fun2(x,y,z)
> $obj->fun3('a')
>$obj->fun4
> $obj->fun5
>The hierarchy is less important. I need just the operators.
>I fear to use regexps (i know them but i am not a wizard in it)
>because in the arguments there could be also parentheses.
>
>What do you think ?
>
>Thanks a lot,
>David
Well, if you set aside all the menutia of parsing language
source code including nesting, comments, and errors,
and have a good idea of what your looking for in a static
way, you might have limited success but not in any way a
guarantee.
What do you mean by "I need just the operators"?
Parsing the source code of structured language is very, very complicated.
-sln
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:59:36 GMT
From: "A. Sinan Unur" <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
Subject: Re: parse perl expression
Message-Id: <Xns9C278431B625asu1cornelledu@127.0.0.1>
david <michaelgang@gmail.com> wrote in news:199f6269-05a1-42ae-aae4-
3383e615f451@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> I have an perl expression which i have to examine (not to run).
>
> for example:
>
> ($obj->fun1(x,y,z) || ($obj->fun2(x,y,z) && $obj->fun3('a') || ($obj-
>>fun4 && $obj->fun5))
> (Please don't count the number of parentheses :-).)
>
> My question is how could i parse this expression
I did not try it out but would PPI work for you?
http://search.cpan.org/~adamk/PPI-1.203/lib/PPI.pm
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://www.rehabitation.com/clpmisc/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: david <michaelgang@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: parse perl expression
Message-Id: <4611ff11-90bd-4036-9774-a32b268371f2@j18g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
On Jun 11, 7:59=A0pm, "A. Sinan Unur" <1...@llenroc.ude.invalid> wrote:
> david <michaelg...@gmail.com> wrote in news:199f6269-05a1-42ae-aae4-
> 3383e615f...@k38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I have an perl expression which i have to examine (not to run).
>
> > for example:
>
> > ($obj->fun1(x,y,z) || ($obj->fun2(x,y,z) && $obj->fun3('a') || ($obj-
> >>fun4 && $obj->fun5))
> > (Please don't count the number of parentheses :-).)
>
> > My question is how could i parse this expression
>
> I did not try it out but would PPI work for you?
>
> http://search.cpan.org/~adamk/PPI-1.203/lib/PPI.pm
>
> Sinan
>
> --
> A. Sinan Unur <1...@llenroc.ude.invalid>
> (remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
>
> comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:http://www.rehabitation.com/clp=
misc/
Thanks.
This looks like a very interesting module. I'll take a look on it.
I have just a problem that it is not pure perl and this is more
headache in installing it on costumer machines.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:48:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: david <michaelgang@gmail.com>
Subject: upgrade strwaberry perl
Message-Id: <bdc43b5f-0127-4fa5-b4b4-d51d9a965a00@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
Hi all,
I have strawberry perl version 5.10.4 and want to upgrade to version
5.
Is there any way to upgrade without reinstalling all modules ?
Thanks,
David
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:55:51 GMT
From: "A. Sinan Unur" <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
Subject: Re: upgrade strwaberry perl
Message-Id: <Xns9C27838EF71F6asu1cornelledu@127.0.0.1>
david <michaelgang@gmail.com> wrote in
news:bdc43b5f-0127-4fa5-b4b4-d51d9a965a00@p4g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
> I have strawberry perl version 5.10.4 and want to upgrade to version
> 5. Is there any way to upgrade without reinstalling all modules ?
Save the contents of the relevant subdirectories under
C:\strawberry\perl\site\lib
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://www.rehabitation.com/clpmisc/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: cul fan <klausfpga@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What happened to perl doc
Message-Id: <7a4c4c3e-b81f-4994-8e3a-47d8289c5fe1@l28g2000vba.googlegroups.com>
On 10 juin, 17:45, "A. Sinan Unur" <1...@llenroc.ude.invalid> wrote:
> The OP was complaining that if perldoc.perl.org did not work, then he
> would lose the ability to browse Perl documentation interactively. My
> reaction was to that: He is on Windows, he seems to be using
> ActiveState, the link to the HTML documentation is installed in his
> start menu. There is no reason for him to lose 'this capability'!
>
> Sinan
I am using cygwin. html-perldoc was not online.
However you're of course right I can download it and work locally,
which I did now
for two more hosts.
On the other hand I got the hang of using perldoc.org, as it is
available on
any computer (even on computers which aren't mine) and as it allows to
check the doc for perl 5.8.8, 5.8.9 and 5.10
In my work environment many users work on Windows hosts running there
their mailSW and their browser and connect to linux hosts via Exceed,
VNC. cygwin xterm, etc.
Of course you can start a web browser remotely with a remote display
on the linux host, but
the local windows browser is normally faster and if every user started
a browser remotely there would be less RAM available for scripts,
other tasks
What I could do as well is to install the html-perldoc on an internal
host with a web server.
Perhaps something to think about, but perldoc.org is just the lazy
self updating option.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: cul fan <klausfpga@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: What happened to perl doc
Message-Id: <c5ed53c2-e936-4e71-ae02-543d6f7759d6@f16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
Did I mention, that I hate Google groups.
I am the OP and replied therefore to Sinan.
Howvever GG chose to use the pseudo of another group instead of the
pseudo for this group
cul fan = perl man
bye
K
------------------------------
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 2472
***************************************
