[32884] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 4162 Volume: 11
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Tue Mar 4 18:09:36 2014
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 15:09:06 -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 Tue, 4 Mar 2014 Volume: 11 Number: 4162
Today's topics:
Re: grep $re gotcha <uri@stemsystems.com>
Re: last iteration of a for loop <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com>
Re: last iteration of a for loop <ben@morrow.me.uk>
Re: last iteration of a for loop <kaz@kylheku.com>
Re: use strict; use warnings; <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com>
Re: use strict; use warnings; <triflemenot@protocol.invalid>
Re: use strict; use warnings; <kaz@kylheku.com>
Re: use strict; use warnings; <triflemenot@protocol.invalid>
Re: using a library <uri@stemsystems.com>
Re: using a library <kaz@kylheku.com>
Re: using a library <hjp-usenet3@hjp.at>
Re: using a library <triflemenot@protocol.invalid>
Re: using a library <triflemenot@protocol.invalid>
Re: using a library <uri@stemsystems.com>
Re: using a library <ben@morrow.me.uk>
Re: using a library <triflemenot@protocol.invalid>
Re: using a library <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
using real objects in constructors <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com>
Re: using real objects in constructors <ben@morrow.me.uk>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 6 Apr 01) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:30:28 -0500
From: Uri Guttman <uri@stemsystems.com>
Subject: Re: grep $re gotcha
Message-Id: <87wqga5y4r.fsf@stemsystems.com>
>>>>> "JB" == John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> writes:
JB> Uri Guttman <uri@stemsystems.com> writes:
>> actually there is one other case which is not well known and should
>> never be used. =~ when given an expression on the right which is not one
>> of the ops s///, tr/// or m// or // will treat that expression as
>> m//. we usually call it the bind operator (vs newbies who seem to think
>> it is a regex or match op) as it binds the left expression to the
>> operand on the right. but it will also default to making that right
>> operand a regex.
JB> You mean:
JB> $RE_SOMETHING =~ $string
JB> v.s.
JB> /$RE_SOMETHING/ =~ $string
JB> Why should the former never be used?
no, i said exactly what i meant. the RIGHT side of =~ will be assumed to
be a regex even if it is not m//, s/// or tr///. it can be any
legal expression. which means the =~ op does more than just bind the
left side to the right side op. it will force the right side to be a
regex if it is not one of the normal ops.
perl -le 'sub foo {"abc"} "abcabc" =~ foo() and print "true"'
true
perl -le '"abbc" =~ join( "", "b" x 2); print "$&"'
bb
uri
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 13:15:27 +0000
From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com>
Subject: Re: last iteration of a for loop
Message-Id: <87lhwqw1e8.fsf@sable.mobileactivedefense.com>
Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> writes:
> Quoth tmcd@panix.com:
>> In article <87lhwrbggp.fsf@lifelogs.com>,
>> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote:
>> >When you have to use older Perls a lot, like I do, you tend to avoid
>> >when/default.
>>
>> Isn't it also experimental and complicated?
>
> Smartmatch, given and when have recently (5.18) been retroactively
> marked experimental. 5.18 will warn if it sees them, unless you've
> disabled the warning: see perl518delta. The semantics are rather badly
> designed, and are likely to change, if the features don't simply do away
> altogether.
The actual text says
Smart match, added in v5.10.0 and significantly revised in
v5.10.1, has been a regular point of complaint. Although there
are a number of ways in which it is useful, it has also proven
problematic and confusing for both users and implementors of
Perl. There have been a number of proposals on how to best
address the problem. It is clear that smartmatch is almost
certainly either going to change or go away in the
future. Relying on its current behavior is not recommended.
Warnings will now be issued when the parser sees ~~ , given , or
when.
[...]
Consider, though, replacing the use of these features, as they
may change behavior again before becoming stable.
http://perldoc.perl.org/5.18.0/perldelta.html#The-smartmatch-family-of-features-are-now-experimental
AIUI, this does not state that the idea to introduce a real switch/ case
statement into Perl was 'a rather bad one'[*] but that the DWIM-approach
behind 'smart matching' which has been marked as experimental turned out
to be "Damn Warren's Infernal Machine" for any who wasn't Warren, as
this kind of things are wont to go, IOW, that a lot of people 'meant'
smart matching to do something completely different than what its
author(s) happened to consider "the only sensible proposition" for each
given case.
Considering this, I think that it is likely that Perl will retain the
given/ when/ default part, although with different and possibly entirely
'unsmart' matching semantics, eg, use equality instead, and probably,
with some way to request for 'set matches', ie, consider a condition as
true when the given value is a member of somehow specified list. OTOH,
the ~~-operator might will disappear entirely if it turns out to be
impossible to agree upon sensible semantics (and I certainly wouldn't
mind that as I found 'smart matching' rather dumb on several occasions).
[*] This doesn't necessarily mean that the focus isn't really about the
sentiments of people who go ballistic once the encounter something which
isn't an if-elsif-elsif-else cascade, just that the text doesn't seem to
state this to me.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 17:33:11 +0000
From: Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk>
Subject: Re: last iteration of a for loop
Message-Id: <nbfhua-75d1.ln1@anubis.morrow.me.uk>
Quoth Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com>:
> Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> writes:
> >
> > Smartmatch, given and when have recently (5.18) been retroactively
> > marked experimental. 5.18 will warn if it sees them, unless you've
> > disabled the warning: see perl518delta. The semantics are rather badly
> > designed, and are likely to change, if the features don't simply do away
> > altogether.
>
> The actual text says
>
> Smart match, added in v5.10.0 and significantly revised in
> v5.10.1, has been a regular point of complaint. Although there
> are a number of ways in which it is useful, it has also proven
> problematic and confusing for both users and implementors of
> Perl. There have been a number of proposals on how to best
> address the problem. It is clear that smartmatch is almost
> certainly either going to change or go away in the
> future. Relying on its current behavior is not recommended.
>
> Warnings will now be issued when the parser sees ~~ , given , or
> when.
>
> [...]
>
> Consider, though, replacing the use of these features, as they
> may change behavior again before becoming stable.
>
>
> http://perldoc.perl.org/5.18.0/perldelta.html#The-smartmatch-family-of-features-are-now-experimental
>
> AIUI, this does not state that the idea to introduce a real switch/ case
> statement into Perl was 'a rather bad one'
You are using quote marks. Who are you quoting?
> [*] but that the DWIM-approach
> behind 'smart matching' which has been marked as experimental turned out
> to be "Damn Warren's Infernal Machine" for any who wasn't Warren, as
> this kind of things are wont to go, IOW, that a lot of people 'meant'
> smart matching to do something completely different than what its
> author(s) happened to consider "the only sensible proposition" for each
> given case.
Yes, more-or-less. Smartmatch works in Perl 6, because Perl 6 has a
well-defined type system, so dispatching on type is a sensible thing to
do. Perl 5 scalars are not meaningfully typed, so, as usual when someone
forgets that, trying to treat them as though they are makes a nasty
mess. (See also: vec, the bitops, The Unicode Bug, and so on.)
> Considering this, I think that it is likely that Perl will retain the
> given/ when/ default part, although with different and possibly entirely
> 'unsmart' matching semantics, eg, use equality instead, and probably,
> with some way to request for 'set matches', ie, consider a condition as
> true when the given value is a member of somehow specified list.
Well, in principle that's all that smartmatch is supposed to be doing:
equality or regex match or set match, as appropriate. In practice this
falls down at the first hurdle: Perl 5 has *two* equality operators, and
it matters which you use. (It also doesn't have a well-defined
reification of 'a class', making is-a tests equally problematic.)
> OTOH,
> the ~~-operator might will disappear entirely if it turns out to be
> impossible to agree upon sensible semantics (and I certainly wouldn't
> mind that as I found 'smart matching' rather dumb on several occasions).
If you can define sensible and useful semantics for 'when', then ~~ can
be defined to do the same thing. If this involves extra syntax inside
the when (which AFAICS is the only answer which will work) then that
syntax would also need to be allowed on the RHS of ~~.
OTOH, given/when without some sort of smart matching just isn't that
useful. (given doesn't even alias, making it's most obvious use, as an
equivalent to VB's 'with', impossible.) If you have to write out all the
conditions explicitly, you've gained nothing over if/elsif. If you want
to default to equality, then we're back to the question of 'which
equality'.
Ben
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 18:33:00 +0000 (UTC)
From: Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com>
Subject: Re: last iteration of a for loop
Message-Id: <20140304101957.178@kylheku.com>
On 2014-03-04, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> wrote:
> AIUI, this does not state that the idea to introduce a real switch/ case
> statement into Perl was 'a rather bad one'[*] but that the DWIM-approach
> behind 'smart matching' which has been marked as experimental turned out
> to be "Damn Warren's Infernal Machine" for any who wasn't Warren, as
Smart feature sometimes turn out not-so-smart.
A few days ago I took out the "smart quote" out of TXR Lisp.
It breaks backward compatibility, but damn backward compatibility.
This was an experiment in using a single quote character in the read
syntax for both regular quotes and quasiquotes.
So '(a b c) is a quote, but '(a b ,c) was a quasiquote.
What prompted me to experiment in that direction was that the backquote
character was already taken for quasiliterals.
This almost worked fine. Under the hood, the parser would walk the template,
and decide "do I generate the quote operator for this, or the qquote macro?"
There were some hacks like treating ,' unconditionally as a spliced quote.
In the end, the deal-breaker was that the print syntax hid the difference
between the two operators, mapping them back to the apostrophe. Combined with
the several more hacks I had to put in, it made for a bad recipe: you have an
object which prints out as ''(a '(,',a)) or whatever and don't know what exact
structure the quotes stand for; and, more importantly, is it the same structure
that would result if you parsed that notation as a string?
So, the right thing is to perform a hack-ectomy. The backquote operator is
now the caret sign, and quote is just quote.
If a feature is bad, throw it out, ASAP. Don't let another day go by with more
programs depending on it.
Don't be like Dennis Ritchie: oh we can't fix the precedence of the bitwise &
operator now that we have &&, because there is a whopping 600 kilobytes of
existing C code already.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 13:39:41 +0000
From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com>
Subject: Re: use strict; use warnings;
Message-Id: <87ha7ew09u.fsf@sable.mobileactivedefense.com>
Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> writes:
> Quoth Trifle Menot <triflemenot@protocol.invalid>:
>>
>> That means programmers write a lot of sloppy programs. It also means
>> humans should leave DNA to God.
>
> I've got a Dr Dawkins for you on line 3...
Dr Dawkins' personal system of unverifiable assumptions he holds to be
true isn't particularly interesting just because it is the system Dr
Dawkins is most comfortable with.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 19:40:21 +0000
From: Trifle Menot <triflemenot@protocol.invalid>
Subject: Re: use strict; use warnings;
Message-Id: <cr7ch9heuvlkpgau9qvdlc6u78ehn6br9v@4ax.com>
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 00:27:42 +0000, Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> wrote:
>> That means programmers write a lot of sloppy programs. It also means
>> humans should leave DNA to God.
>I've got a Dr Dawkins for you on line 3...
Good retort. Funny too.
Shows it's not necessary to attack a person you disagree with. Too bad
not everyone understands that.
Those who don't understand / do attack, are counterproductive, defeating
themselves.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 20:00:21 +0000 (UTC)
From: Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com>
Subject: Re: use strict; use warnings;
Message-Id: <20140304115708.489@kylheku.com>
On 2014-03-04, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com> wrote:
> Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> writes:
>> Quoth Trifle Menot <triflemenot@protocol.invalid>:
>>>
>>> That means programmers write a lot of sloppy programs. It also means
>>> humans should leave DNA to God.
>>
>> I've got a Dr Dawkins for you on line 3...
>
> Dr Dawkins' personal system of unverifiable assumptions he holds to be
> true isn't particularly interesting just because it is the system Dr
> Dawkins is most comfortable with.
The practice of holding unverifiable assumptions to be true is precisely what
Dawkins is known for opposing.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 21:26:51 +0000
From: Trifle Menot <triflemenot@protocol.invalid>
Subject: Re: use strict; use warnings;
Message-Id: <61hch9ljno156km5417ebdtq7ielgeji9c@4ax.com>
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 20:00:21 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com>
wrote:
> The practice of holding unverifiable assumptions to be true is precisely
> what Dawkins is known for opposing.
Without axioms there would be no math. But I think atheism is the wrong
axiom.
a) do I exist: pin prick, ouch.
b) does the universe exist: hmmm, look around.
c) does the universe exist without cause: ???
If so, why is there "something" rather than "nothing." Why does anything
exist at all? A natural "void," without any matter or energy, seems more
natural to me. Like starting from 0. :-)
So I believe the universe had a cause. But of course atheists must ask
"who created God?"
Einstein knew time is a property of the universe, the so called fourth
dimension. Human existence is limited by time and the spatial dimensions
of the universe. We cannot step outside that reality.
But God exists outside time itself. That's what "eternal" means. But in
programming terms, we may wonder, did God "bootstrap" his own existence?
I don't know.
It's obvious that humans of flesh and blood cannot exist outside time
itself. Since we cannot experience that condition, how can we possibly
understand it? Human intellectual capacity is limited, axiomatically so,
by the reality where we exist. We don't have sufficient reasoning power
to understand if God bootstrapped himself, or how.
Thus my remark about God and DNA. Studying DNA is one thing. Tampering
with it is another. Vengeance belongs to God.
I don't intend to fan the fire of atheism vs. faith. I was merely noting
that even great programmers should maintain humility. Certainly so, when
facing God.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:22:43 -0500
From: Uri Guttman <uri@stemsystems.com>
Subject: Re: using a library
Message-Id: <871tyi7d24.fsf@stemsystems.com>
>>>>> "TM" == Trifle Menot <triflemenot@protocol.invalid> writes:
TM> On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 01:30:43 -0500, Uri Guttman <uri@stemsystems.com>
TM> wrote:
>> another twit who wants to fight off the perl world
TM> A few (three?) are not the world.
considering usenet is pretty small these days, 3 is a lot. you can chat
in a vacuum if you desire. it would only further prove your mental state
isn't in good shape.
>> perl refs are not tricky in any subjective or objective views. the
>> word choice was not only incorrect
TM> Calling subjective opinions "incorrect" is incorrect.
hmm, opinions can be incorrect. yours are mostly so.
>> but damaging to any newbie
TM> I doubt it. Maybe you're paranoid.
hahah!! wow. consider me not your stalker. but i won't let you get away
with bullshit here. i have been in this group far too long and seen to
much to let twits like you blather away. protecting newbies from bad
perl advice is something i cherish.
uri
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 06:14:54 +0000 (UTC)
From: Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com>
Subject: Re: using a library
Message-Id: <20140303215714.658@kylheku.com>
On 2014-03-04, Uri Guttman <uri@stemsystems.com> wrote:
> hahah!! wow. consider me not your stalker. but i won't let you get away
> with bullshit here. i have been in this group far too long and seen to
> much to let twits like you blather away. protecting newbies from bad
> perl advice is something i cherish.
I have nothing to do with this debate and don't know who is wrong or right
(more importantly, do not *care*).
I write from an starkly objective and detached position when I make this
observation: the above paragraph reads like the work of a thirteen-year-old.
(Which does tend to, ipso facto, make you wrong.)
Moreover, come to think of it, if you there is any way you can make it rhyme,
you could even have successful rap lyrics.
We could apply an intellectual-level-preserving transformation to your
semantics, while turning the expressive form into art! Watch:
I'm gonna flame yo' ass and serve it up with relish.
Cuz protectin' da n00bs from you is sumptn' dat I cherish.
Seen too much of your kind and your twitty perl advices.
Yo' mama walks the streets and yo' hair be full of lices.
Okie then, don't mind me, carry on ...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 10:29:38 +0100
From: "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet3@hjp.at>
Subject: Re: using a library
Message-Id: <slrnlhb782.83f.hjp-usenet3@hrunkner.hjp.at>
On 2014-03-04 06:14, Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:
> I'm gonna flame yo' ass and serve it up with relish.
> Cuz protectin' da n00bs from you is sumptn' dat I cherish.
>
> Seen too much of your kind and your twitty perl advices.
> Yo' mama walks the streets and yo' hair be full of lices.
:-)
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Fluch der elektronischen Textverarbeitung:
|_|_) | | Man feilt solange an seinen Text um, bis
| | | hjp@hjp.at | die Satzbestandteile des Satzes nicht mehr
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | zusammenpaßt. -- Ralph Babel
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 19:40:20 +0000
From: Trifle Menot <triflemenot@protocol.invalid>
Subject: Re: using a library
Message-Id: <q24ch99vc4ouf3kb1fqm0pc586u9lcu7q1@4ax.com>
On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:22:43 -0500, Uri Guttman <uri@stemsystems.com>
wrote:
> consider me not your stalker
That's what they all say.
<plonk>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 19:40:20 +0000
From: Trifle Menot <triflemenot@protocol.invalid>
Subject: Re: using a library
Message-Id: <054ch9hggps8uulq5hp1g3coppr2ae0bu8@4ax.com>
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 06:14:54 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com>
wrote:
>On 2014-03-04, Uri Guttman <uri@stemsystems.com> wrote:
>> hahah!! wow. consider me not your stalker.
>I have nothing to do with this debate
Criticism that's personal and slanderous is not debate. It's trolling
and that's when I stop listening.
> I write from an starkly objective and detached position when I make this
> observation: the above paragraph reads like the work of a thirteen-year-old.
Some people never outgrow the teenage years.
> I'm gonna flame yo' ass and serve it up with relish.
> Cuz protectin' da n00bs from you is sumptn' dat I cherish.
>
> Seen too much of your kind and your twitty perl advices.
> Yo' mama walks the streets and yo' hair be full of lices.
Sounds about right.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 15:59:43 -0500
From: Uri Guttman <uri@stemsystems.com>
Subject: Re: using a library
Message-Id: <87siqx65og.fsf@stemsystems.com>
>>>>> "TM" == Trifle Menot <triflemenot@protocol.invalid> writes:
TM> On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:22:43 -0500, Uri Guttman <uri@stemsystems.com>
TM> wrote:
>> consider me not your stalker
TM> That's what they all say.
TM> <plonk>
good for you. i will still followup to correct your nonsense so others
won't be fooled.
uri
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:25:43 +0000
From: Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk>
Subject: Re: using a library
Message-Id: <nvshua-qbp1.ln1@anubis.morrow.me.uk>
Quoth Trifle Menot <triflemenot@protocol.invalid>:
>
> Criticism that's personal and slanderous is not debate. It's trolling
> and that's when I stop listening.
Oh, do grow up and get over yourself. Charlton was a little rude,
nothing more, and you are throwing a major hissy fit for no real reason.
You are new here, Charlton is a regular; of course the other regulars
are going to tend to take his side. Learn not to take it personally, or
you will very quickly wear out your welcome.
Ben
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 22:02:31 +0000
From: Trifle Menot <triflemenot@protocol.invalid>
Subject: Re: using a library
Message-Id: <j3jch91mhnqmnsavqijs79ca3kdnsjc1q1@4ax.com>
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014 21:25:43 +0000, Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk> wrote:
> You are new here, Charlton is a regular ... of course the other regulars
> are going to tend to take his side. Learn not to take it personally, or
> you will very quickly wear out your welcome.
I don't need regular approval. Welcome or not, here I am. As long as it
interests me.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:11:13 -0800
From: Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: using a library
Message-Id: <9pjch95a4umovc33re7ce4jsj1mo92rf26@4ax.com>
Trifle Menot <triflemenot@protocol.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:22:43 -0500, Uri Guttman <uri@stemsystems.com>
>wrote:
>
>> consider me not your stalker
>
>That's what they all say.
>
><plonk>
Considering Uri's and Trifle's posting history and reputation in this
NG: What does the oak care, if a pig rubs against it?
jue
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:18:44 +0000
From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com>
Subject: using real objects in constructors
Message-Id: <87r46h991n.fsf@sable.mobileactivedefense.com>
The usual way to construct an instance of a Perl class (I'm aware of)
would look somewhat like this:
sub new
{
my ($class, $arg) = @_;
my $self;
$self->[0] = $arg;
return bless($self, $class);
}
Fairly recently, it occured to me that this can also be accomplished
with
sub new
{
my ($class, $arg) = @_;
my @self;
$self[0] = $arg;
return bless(\@self, $class);
}
Are there any good (or not-so-good) reasons to prefer one over the
other?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 17:35:48 +0000
From: Ben Morrow <ben@morrow.me.uk>
Subject: Re: using real objects in constructors
Message-Id: <kgfhua-75d1.ln1@anubis.morrow.me.uk>
Quoth Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com>:
> The usual way to construct an instance of a Perl class (I'm aware of)
> would look somewhat like this:
>
> sub new
> {
> my ($class, $arg) = @_;
> my $self;
>
> $self->[0] = $arg;
> return bless($self, $class);
> }
>
> Fairly recently, it occured to me that this can also be accomplished
> with
>
> sub new
> {
> my ($class, $arg) = @_;
> my @self;
>
> $self[0] = $arg;
> return bless(\@self, $class);
> }
>
> Are there any good (or not-so-good) reasons to prefer one over the
> other?
No. Once ->new has returned the results are identical, so the only
question is which is more convenient inside the new method.
Ben
------------------------------
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 4162
***************************************
