[32503] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 3768 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Tue Aug 28 03:09:19 2012
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:09:06 -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, 28 Aug 2012 Volume: 11 Number: 3768
Today's topics:
Re: [OT] Re: still good extant newsgroups Re: Man, has <xhoster@gmail.com>
Re: check for exact # of digits <willem@turtle.stack.nl>
Re: check for exact # of digits <jblack@nospam.com>
Re: check for exact # of digits <jwkrahn@example.com>
Clairvoyance <ben@morrow.me.uk>
Neat way of checking that two hash values both exist? <news@lawshouse.org>
Re: Neat way of checking that two hash values both exis (Tim McDaniel)
Re: Neat way of checking that two hash values both exis (Tim McDaniel)
Re: Neat way of checking that two hash values both exis <news@lawshouse.org>
Re: Neat way of checking that two hash values both exis <ben@morrow.me.uk>
Re: Neat way of checking that two hash values both exis (hymie!)
Re: Neat way of checking that two hash values both exis (Tim McDaniel)
Re: Neat way of checking that two hash values both exis (Tim McDaniel)
Re: Neat way of checking that two hash values both exis <news@lawshouse.org>
Re: Semi-random sentence generator <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca>
Re: Semi-random sentence generator <ignoramus27014@NOSPAM.27014.invalid>
Re: Semi-random sentence generator <*@eli.users.panix.com>
Re: Semi-random sentence generator (Randal L. Schwartz)
Re: Semi-random sentence generator <mkaras@carousel-design.com>
Re: Semi-random sentence generator <ignoramus27014@NOSPAM.27014.invalid>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 16:00:54 -0700
From: Xho Jingleheimerschmidt <xhoster@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: still good extant newsgroups Re: Man, has this newsgroup shrunk. Why? Where gone to?
Message-Id: <503c0acf$0$8296$ed362ca5@nr5-q3a.newsreader.com>
On 08/26/2012 01:05 AM, Cal Dershowitz wrote:
>
> Would you indulge me by allowing me to ask you, Keith, the other Keith,
> my good old friend, how do people mix C and Perl with installations?
I like Inline::C. But then again, I don't know what restrictions "with
installations" is supposed to imply.
Xho
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:48:39 +0000 (UTC)
From: Willem <willem@turtle.stack.nl>
Subject: Re: check for exact # of digits
Message-Id: <slrnk3n977.2q5g.willem@turtle.stack.nl>
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
) "John W. Krahn" <jwkrahn@example.com> writes:
)> if ( 8 == $checkDate =~ tr/0-9// ) {
)
) Please do not copy this style. The justification for that is that -
) <snip>
)
) [*] In real languages, one asks for the value of an attribute (Is the
) color red?) and not for the attribute of a value (Is red the color?,
) aka 'She is your sister' vs 'Your sister she is').
Perhaps we should call that Yoda-style, from now on. :-)
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:54:01 -0500
From: John Black <jblack@nospam.com>
Subject: Re: check for exact # of digits
Message-Id: <MPG.2aa57e4340b3e3d7989731@news.eternal-september.org>
In article <87d32ctuq1.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com>, rweikusat@mssgmbh.com says...
> some people love to use
> because the very notion of doing anything in straight-forward way just
> feels wrong to them.
Funny (and true)...
John Black
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 19:25:51 -0700
From: "John W. Krahn" <jwkrahn@example.com>
Subject: Re: check for exact # of digits
Message-Id: <Q_V_r.850$rC1.154@newsfe16.iad>
Ben Morrow wrote:
>
> Quoth jwkrahn@shaw.ca:
>> bjlockie wrote:
>>> I have this at the beginning of a sub ($checkDate is an input parameter).
>>> I want to check for exactly 8 digits.
>>> This works for less than 8 but doesn't work for more than 8.
>>>
>>> if ($checkDate !~ /^\d{1,8}/) {
>>> return "Date ($checkDate) must be YYYYMMDD\n";
>>> }
>>
>> if ( 8 == $checkDate =~ tr/0-9// ) {
>> return "Date ($checkDate) must be YYYYMMDD\n";
>> }
>
> That's not the same.
Duh!
> For one thing I believe you have the condition the
> wrong way around;
No, it is correct.
> for another, the OP's pattern is anchored (at the
> beginning, and should be at the end), which cannot be emulated with
> tr///.
The OP should have been more explicit in their specification.
"I want to check for exactly 8 digits"
Which is accomplished by my solution.
John
--
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and
more complex... It takes a touch of genius -
and a lot of courage to move in the opposite
direction. -- Albert Einstein
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:43:58 +0100
From: Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk>
Subject: Clairvoyance
Message-Id: <ergtg9-jop1.ln1@anubis.morrow.me.uk>
Quoth Xho Jingleheimerschmidt <xhoster@gmail.com>:
> On 08/26/2012 01:05 AM, Cal Dershowitz wrote:
> >
> > Would you indulge me by allowing me to ask you, Keith, the other Keith,
> > my good old friend, how do people mix C and Perl with installations?
>
> I like Inline::C. But then again, I don't know what restrictions "with
> installations" is supposed to imply.
If I had to guess, I would guess the question means something along the
lines of 'how do people usually manage the installation of C libraries
required by Perl modules, since CPAN doesn't handle them', but it's
impossible to be sure.
Ben
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:17:02 +0100
From: Henry Law <news@lawshouse.org>
Subject: Neat way of checking that two hash values both exist?
Message-Id: <aIGdnYvoEf3jAKbNnZ2dnUVZ7sadnZ2d@giganews.com>
I'm checking parameters to a little utility I'm writing. It uses
Getopt::Std, which returns the parameters in a hash %opts.
The logic of the utility requires both flags -h and -p to be specified
or neither. I'm coding the part that checks whether that is true.
I'm sure there's a neater way than this (which does work, admittedly):
die "Flags -h and -p must be specified together\n"
if (exists $opts{p} && !exists $opts{h}) || (exists $opts{h} &&
!exists $opts{p});
But I can't find one! Several other attempts are just as wordy and have
more tortured logic. Suggestions?
--
Henry Law Manchester, England
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:22:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: tmcd@panix.com (Tim McDaniel)
Subject: Re: Neat way of checking that two hash values both exist?
Message-Id: <k1g6rk$ct1$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <aIGdnYvoEf3jAKbNnZ2dnUVZ7sadnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Henry Law <news@lawshouse.org> wrote:
>I'm checking parameters to a little utility I'm writing. It uses
>Getopt::Std, which returns the parameters in a hash %opts.
>
>The logic of the utility requires both flags -h and -p to be specified
>or neither. I'm coding the part that checks whether that is true.
>
>I'm sure there's a neater way than this (which does work, admittedly):
>
>die "Flags -h and -p must be specified together\n"
> if (exists $opts{p} && !exists $opts{h}) || (exists $opts{h} &&
>!exists $opts{p});
if exists $opts{p} == exists $opts{h}
--
Tim McDaniel, tmcd@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:44:58 +0000 (UTC)
From: tmcd@panix.com (Tim McDaniel)
Subject: Re: Neat way of checking that two hash values both exist?
Message-Id: <k1g86a$b1r$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <k1g6rk$ct1$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Tim McDaniel <tmcd@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <aIGdnYvoEf3jAKbNnZ2dnUVZ7sadnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>Henry Law <news@lawshouse.org> wrote:
>>I'm checking parameters to a little utility I'm writing. It uses
>>Getopt::Std, which returns the parameters in a hash %opts.
>>
>>The logic of the utility requires both flags -h and -p to be specified
>>or neither. I'm coding the part that checks whether that is true.
>>
>>I'm sure there's a neater way than this (which does work, admittedly):
>>
>>die "Flags -h and -p must be specified together\n"
>> if (exists $opts{p} && !exists $opts{h}) || (exists $opts{h} &&
>>!exists $opts{p});
>
> if exists $opts{p} == exists $opts{h}
To expand on that,
IF you have Perl boolean values, by which I mean there are only two
possible values, where one evaluates to true and one evaluates to
false (and I believe that exists fulfils that),
THEN != is the exclusive-or function: it is true if an only if exactly
one of its operands is true.
And therefore == is the inverse: true if and only if both operands are
true or both operands are false.
You may not have such a boolean. For example, you might have a
function returning a number, and you want to just check that both are
zero or both are non-zero. You can't do
somefunc($x) == somefunc($y)
because maybe that's (for example)
12 == 27
which is incorrect.
So !! is Perl's "convert to boolean" operator:
!!(something that evaluates to false) -> ''
!!(something that evaluates to true) -> 1
So the more general way to do exclusive or for values that are simply
either Perl true or Perl false, but might be any true or false value,
!!val1 != !!val2
and so the general "both or neither" is
!!val1 == !!val2
--
Tim McDaniel, tmcd@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:58:28 +0100
From: Henry Law <news@lawshouse.org>
Subject: Re: Neat way of checking that two hash values both exist?
Message-Id: <6Ymdne5B8NHZKKbNnZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
On 27/08/12 17:44, Tim McDaniel wrote:
> So !! is Perl's "convert to boolean" operator:
> !!(something that evaluates to false) -> ''
> !!(something that evaluates to true) -> 1
>
> So the more general way to do exclusive or
This is wonderful. So helpful, and exactly what I wanted by way of
ingenuity. I've been coding in Perl for several years now (strictly as
an amateur, though) but I've still got a great deal to learn.
As you say 'exists' returns only true or false so I can use the shorter
method.
--
Henry Law Manchester, England
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 19:47:39 +0100
From: Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk>
Subject: Re: Neat way of checking that two hash values both exist?
Message-Id: <bvrsg9-6tm1.ln1@anubis.morrow.me.uk>
Quoth tmcd@panix.com:
> >
> > if exists $opts{p} == exists $opts{h}
>
> To expand on that,
>
> IF you have Perl boolean values, by which I mean there are only two
> possible values, where one evaluates to true and one evaluates to
> false (and I believe that exists fulfils that),
It does.
<snip>
> You may not have such a boolean. For example, you might have a
> function returning a number, and you want to just check that both are
> zero or both are non-zero. You can't do
> somefunc($x) == somefunc($y)
> because maybe that's (for example)
> 12 == 27
> which is incorrect.
>
> So !! is Perl's "convert to boolean" operator:
> !!(something that evaluates to false) -> ''
> !!(something that evaluates to true) -> 1
It's worth being clear that !! is not an operator in its own right, but
simply two instances of !. I'm sure you know this, but I have seen
people confused about it in the past.
> So the more general way to do exclusive or for values that are simply
> either Perl true or Perl false, but might be any true or false value,
> !!val1 != !!val2
> and so the general "both or neither" is
> !!val1 == !!val2
Or, you know, use exclusive or? For some reason I have never been able
to work out there is no ^^ operator, so you have to use 'xor':
if ($val1 xor $val2)
unless ($val1 xor $val2)
Don't make the mistake of using ^ for logical tests; the only case where
it works reliably is when your values are already 1 or 0, in which case
== and != are clearer.
!! is worth knowing about as a concept, though, despite being so ugly.
Ben
------------------------------
Date: 27 Aug 2012 18:50:13 GMT
From: hymie@lactose.homelinux.net (hymie!)
Subject: Re: Neat way of checking that two hash values both exist?
Message-Id: <503bc165$0$13259$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
Henry Law <news@lawshouse.org>, who said:
>The logic of the utility requires both flags -h and -p to be specified
>or neither. I'm coding the part that checks whether that is true.
I know this is outside the scope of your question ... but if the
flags must either both be specified or both be unspecified, then why
do you have two flags?
--hymie! http://lactose.homelinux.net/~hymie hymie@lactose.homelinux.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 19:27:59 +0000 (UTC)
From: tmcd@panix.com (Tim McDaniel)
Subject: Re: Neat way of checking that two hash values both exist?
Message-Id: <k1ghnu$rgd$1@reader1.panix.com>
In article <bvrsg9-6tm1.ln1@anubis.morrow.me.uk>,
Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> wrote:
>
>Quoth tmcd@panix.com:
>> >
>> > if exists $opts{p} == exists $opts{h}
>>
>> To expand on that,
>>
>> IF you have Perl boolean values, by which I mean there are only two
>> possible values, where one evaluates to true and one evaluates to
>> false
which was silly. Sorry. For != as exclusive or and similar ==, you
just need two distinct values that can be compared numerically. A
true number and 0 fulfil the condition, but 17 and 42 would work too.
I was just trying to express that you can't have more than two
values.
>> So !! is Perl's "convert to boolean" operator:
>> !!(something that evaluates to false) -> ''
>> !!(something that evaluates to true) -> 1
>
>It's worth being clear that !! is not an operator in its own right, but
>simply two instances of !. I'm sure you know this, but I have seen
>people confused about it in the past.
Quite so. Sorry for being confusing.
>Or, you know, use exclusive or? For some reason I have never been able
>to work out there is no ^^ operator, so you have to use 'xor':
I tend not to remember "and", "or", and "xor" because they came in
well after I started Perling, and there is no ^^. Of course, you need
to remember that "and", "or", and "xor" have very low precedence, so
while you don't need parens in
$both = $a && $b;
$either = !!$a == !!$b
you do need parens in
$both = ($a and $b);
$either = ($a xor $b);
--
Tim McDaniel, tmcd@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 19:34:56 +0000 (UTC)
From: tmcd@panix.com (Tim McDaniel)
Subject: Re: Neat way of checking that two hash values both exist?
Message-Id: <k1gi50$rgd$2@reader1.panix.com>
In article <503bc165$0$13259$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>,
hymie! <hymie@lactose.homelinux.net> wrote:
>In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
> Henry Law <news@lawshouse.org>, who said:
>
>>The logic of the utility requires both flags -h and -p to be specified
>>or neither. I'm coding the part that checks whether that is true.
>
>I know this is outside the scope of your question ... but if the
>flags must either both be specified or both be unspecified, then why
>do you have two flags?
The option parsing modules that I know of allow no more than one
string value argument for a single option. If you need two option
values for a given purpose and you're using such a module, then you
have to accomodate it.
(I can imagine being pedantic and wanting to make something clear to
the user that option 1 implies option 2 by requiring them to enter
both options, but I don't know of any commands that do that.)
--
Tim McDaniel, tmcd@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 21:08:05 +0100
From: Henry Law <news@lawshouse.org>
Subject: Re: Neat way of checking that two hash values both exist?
Message-Id: <EuWdnRtuhac4TqbNnZ2dnUVZ7s-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
On 27/08/12 19:50, hymie! wrote:
> In our last episode, the evil Dr. Lacto had captured our hero,
> Henry Law <news@lawshouse.org>, who said:
> I know this is outside the scope of your question ... but if the
> flags must either both be specified or both be unspecified, then why
> do you have two flags?
It's a good question; or at least it would be if I hadn't complicated
matters by simplifying the example. They're not just flags: they have
values too. -p foo -h bar.
I suppose I could have combined the two values, -x "foo@bar" or some
such, but then I'd have had to parse the two halves out again and check
that they were both there.
--
Henry Law Manchester, England
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:39:42 +0000 (UTC)
From: "David Canzi" <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca>
Subject: Re: Semi-random sentence generator
Message-Id: <k1g4bu$85b$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>
Ignoramus11402 <ignoramus11402@NOSPAM.11402.invalid> wrote:
>I want to generate some sentences that would seem random enough to look
>different, but would, in fact, convey the same message.
>
>For example:
>
> * Please provide a phone number in your response
> * You should provide a telephone number in your email
> * I want you to include your phone number in your messages, please
>
>You are getting the idea. What I would like is to vary the phrasing a
>little bit, add "please" or "You should" and so on, but keep the core
>meaning of "provide phone number".
>
>I can write something of this sort myself, probably based on BNF and
>config files.
>
>Before I embark on writing a module for this sort of thing, I wanted
>to check if perhaps am existing module could be used for this. Are
>there any perl modules that do this "sentence variation"?
>
>Thanks.
>
>i
As a recreational problem, I once tried to figure out how some
spam detection methods could be defeated. One of my first ideas
was to generate differently worded sentences that have the same
meaning, so that the contents of the messages sent in a spam run
would have different MD5 hashes...
--
David Canzi | "Passionate hatred can give meaning and
| purpose to an empty life." -- Eric Hoffer
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:42:47 -0500
From: Ignoramus27014 <ignoramus27014@NOSPAM.27014.invalid>
Subject: Re: Semi-random sentence generator
Message-Id: <yYCdnX_0XIl6aqbNnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@giganews.com>
On 2012-08-27, David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> Ignoramus11402 <ignoramus11402@NOSPAM.11402.invalid> wrote:
>>I want to generate some sentences that would seem random enough to look
>>different, but would, in fact, convey the same message.
>>
>>For example:
>>
>> * Please provide a phone number in your response
>> * You should provide a telephone number in your email
>> * I want you to include your phone number in your messages, please
>>
>>You are getting the idea. What I would like is to vary the phrasing a
>>little bit, add "please" or "You should" and so on, but keep the core
>>meaning of "provide phone number".
>>
>>I can write something of this sort myself, probably based on BNF and
>>config files.
>>
>>Before I embark on writing a module for this sort of thing, I wanted
>>to check if perhaps am existing module could be used for this. Are
>>there any perl modules that do this "sentence variation"?
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>i
>
> As a recreational problem, I once tried to figure out how some
> spam detection methods could be defeated. One of my first ideas
> was to generate differently worded sentences that have the same
> meaning, so that the contents of the messages sent in a spam run
> would have different MD5 hashes...
>
This is from a similar ontological area, but slightly different. I
post for sale ads to Craigslist. The ads are genuine. The goods
offered for sale exist in the local area, they match the craigslist
category, and I think that I am asking reasonable prices. That said, I
do not want the ads to appear as if they were written by the same
person, hence the desire for variations.
i
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 22:56:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com>
Subject: Re: Semi-random sentence generator
Message-Id: <eli$1208271847@qz.little-neck.ny.us>
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
Ignoramus27014 <ignoramus27014@NOSPAM.27014.invalid> wrote:
> On 2012-08-27, David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> Ignoramus11402 <ignoramus11402@NOSPAM.11402.invalid> wrote:
>>> I want to generate some sentences that would seem random enough to look
>>> different, but would, in fact, convey the same message.
>> As a recreational problem, I once tried to figure out how some
>> spam detection methods could be defeated.
> This is from a similar ontological area, but slightly different. I
> post for sale ads to Craigslist. The ads are genuine. The goods
> offered for sale exist in the local area, they match the craigslist
> category, and I think that I am asking reasonable prices. That said, I
> do not want the ads to appear as if they were written by the same
> person, hence the desire for variations.
I wrote a BNF for making fridge magnet poetry years ago. It was
fun and easy enough. In your shoes I'd probably not do that,
though. I'd go for more of a choose-your-own-adventure with
premade sentences. Although I'm not sure I see the reason for
masking that it is all the same person.
Elijah
------
recognizes the name "Iggy" from rec.crafts.metalworking
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 20:27:45 -0700
From: merlyn@stonehenge.com (Randal L. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: Semi-random sentence generator
Message-Id: <861uiru24u.fsf@red.stonehenge.com>
>>>>> "Ignoramus27014" == Ignoramus27014 <ignoramus27014@NOSPAM.27014.invalid> writes:
Ignoramus27014> This is from a similar ontological area, but slightly
Ignoramus27014> different. I post for sale ads to Craigslist. The ads
Ignoramus27014> are genuine. The goods offered for sale exist in the
Ignoramus27014> local area, they match the craigslist category, and I
Ignoramus27014> think that I am asking reasonable prices. That said, I
Ignoramus27014> do not want the ads to appear as if they were written by
Ignoramus27014> the same person, hence the desire for variations.
This seems like you are trying to deceive people. This is not something
I could, in good conscience, support. And I presume there are many
others here in a similar situation. How do you sleep at night?
--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn@stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 20:53:04 -0700
From: Michael Karas <mkaras@carousel-design.com>
Subject: Re: Semi-random sentence generator
Message-Id: <MPG.2aa5e07b13ff39929896e8@news.eternal-september.org>
[This followup was posted to comp.lang.perl.modules and a copy was sent
to the cited author.]
In article <a6idnaN2uae-VafNnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
ignoramus11402@NOSPAM.11402.invalid says...
>
> I want to generate some sentences that would seem random enough to look
> different, but would, in fact, convey the same message.
>
> For example:
>
> * Please provide a phone number in your response
> * You should provide a telephone number in your email
> * I want you to include your phone number in your messages, please
>
> You are getting the idea. What I would like is to vary the phrasing a
> little bit, add "please" or "You should" and so on, but keep the core
> meaning of "provide phone number".
>
> I can write something of this sort myself, probably based on BNF and
> config files.
>
> Before I embark on writing a module for this sort of thing, I wanted
> to check if perhaps am existing module could be used for this. Are
> there any perl modules that do this "sentence variation"?
>
> Thanks.
>
> i
Did you try a Google search for this subject? There seems to be a
plethora of information available. You certainly can convert from other
language implementations to perl.
See:
http://sentence.bigparadox.com/
--
Michael Karas
Carousel Design Solutions
http://www.carousel-design.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 23:26:29 -0500
From: Ignoramus27014 <ignoramus27014@NOSPAM.27014.invalid>
Subject: Re: Semi-random sentence generator
Message-Id: <AoqdnS6GVvDo1aHNnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@giganews.com>
On 2012-08-28, Randal L. Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Ignoramus27014" == Ignoramus27014 <ignoramus27014@NOSPAM.27014.invalid> writes:
>
> Ignoramus27014> This is from a similar ontological area, but slightly
> Ignoramus27014> different. I post for sale ads to Craigslist. The ads
> Ignoramus27014> are genuine. The goods offered for sale exist in the
> Ignoramus27014> local area, they match the craigslist category, and I
> Ignoramus27014> think that I am asking reasonable prices. That said, I
> Ignoramus27014> do not want the ads to appear as if they were written by
> Ignoramus27014> the same person, hence the desire for variations.
>
> This seems like you are trying to deceive people. This is not something
> I could, in good conscience, support. And I presume there are many
> others here in a similar situation. How do you sleep at night?
>
I sleep only moderately well, at best.
i
------------------------------
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:
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
Back issues are available via anonymous ftp from
ftp://cil-www.oce.orst.edu/pub/perl/old-digests.
#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 3768
***************************************
