[6654] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 279 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri Apr 11 11:17:37 1997
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 97 08:01:32 -0700
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Fri, 11 Apr 1997 Volume: 8 Number: 279
Today's topics:
Re: Reply to Ousterhout's reply (was Re: Ousterhout and (Andrew Koenig)
Re: Reply to Ousterhout's reply (was Re: Ousterhout and (Cyber Surfer)
Re: Reply to Ousterhout's reply (was Re: Ousterhout and <erik@naggum.no>
Re: Reply to Ousterhout's reply (was Re: Ousterhout and (Hume Smith)
Re: Reply to Ousterhout's reply (was Re: Ousterhout and <prasadm@not4u.polaroid.com>
sendmail equivalent for MS-DOS/Windows? (Kevin Posen)
Re: Ugly Versus Elegant (Was: Reply to Ousterhout's rep lvirden@cas.org
use Win32::ODBC :Parse exception Laurent_Filhol@HP-France-om8.om.hp.com
Re: What does "UNIX" stand for.. (Re: Who makes more $$ <davecb@canada.sun.com>
Why doesn't this work LD_LIBRARY_PATH (Robert Nicholson)
Win32::ODBC : need help! Laurent_Filhol@HP-France-om8.om.hp.com
Re: Working perl script... not running with HTTP get. (nick^)
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:24:26 GMT
From: ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig)
Subject: Re: Reply to Ousterhout's reply (was Re: Ousterhout and Tcl ...)
Message-Id: <E8H3sq.Jt6@research.att.com>
In article <01bc45d3$cdf47fa0$03d3c9d0@wjh_dell_133.dazsi.com> "Bill House" <bhouse@dazsi.com> writes:
> Hype alone won't make an intelligent shopper buy, ...
But hype alone will sometimes make the intelligent shopper's boss' boss buy,
which is the same thing from the hype merchant's viewpoint.
I've seen the phenomenon in action as long as I've been involved
in computing, which is more than a quarter century at this point.
It applies equally to hardware, software, languages, tools, and
methodologies.
--
--Andrew Koenig
ark@research.att.com
http://www.research.att.com/info/ark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:00:38 +0100
From: cyber_surfer@gubbish.wildcard.demon.co.uk (Cyber Surfer)
Subject: Re: Reply to Ousterhout's reply (was Re: Ousterhout and Tcl ...)
Message-Id: <MPG.db8014d28a1d0fa98975c@news.demon.co.uk>
With a mighty <334D0B97.1A64@not4u.polaroid.com>,
prasadm@not4u.polaroid.com uttered these wise words...
> Lisp is rather nice, but it is the evangelists/Lisp-marketeers
> many of us could do without. I have gotten to suspect that
> since a programming language occupies a lot of a programmer's mind
> and thoughts, and since programming in Lisp tends to encourage
> the quick hack for "fooling the machine" to get what you want
> done, the hardcore Lisp programmers tend to acquire the mindset
> that in a newsgroup the objective is to "fool the audience" to
> get them to believe whatever you want them to believe.
Perhaps a _few people_ are a little over-zealous in their support (and
defense) of Lisp, but I don't believe that there's a general trend
amoung Lisp programmers - at least in comp.lang.lisp - to deceive
anyone. In fact, I've noticed many threads in which the exact opposite
has occured. Lisp people have gracefully responded to attacks from
people (who, curiously, have tended to support C++) with informed and
_easily verified_ postings, often with references to software or CS
papers available via the Internet.
> Amazingly, a lot of the hardcore ng Lisp evangelists don't even
> seem to have learned the language or the issues well, but are good
> at fooling the audience into believing they have! And those
> who do know the language and the issues well will not speak
> out if it contributes away from a "desired" fooling of the
> audience. Contrast that with C, where in strange debates
> involving Scott Nudd, C supporters would go out of their way
> to correct each other if one of them stepped on the truth
> and facts.
See above. I think you've confused Lisp with C/C++. If you'd been
reading comp.lang.lisp prior to 1995 (when the concerted attacks
mysteriously ceased), then you'd have found the clueless attacks very
hard to miss. As they were crossposted to a fair number of other
newsgroups, like comp.lang.tcl and comp.lang.perl, and not just
comp.lang.lisp and comp.lang.c++, it's possible that a number of
people reading _this_ thread know what I'm refering to.
I still hope that the C/C++ programmers posting in those threads were
not representative of C/C++ programmers in general. Either these
people were just using clueless arguments in the hope of "beating" a
language that they somehow saw as a rival, or they really did believe
it all. I can cope with propaganda, but the thought that it might've
been _ignorance_ scares me.
Still, it might explain the low quality of some of the software that
we see. The fact that it sells, and people use it regardless of the
bugs, the poor performance, the pathetic features, etc...well, that
worries me, too. Just not in the same way. After all, there's a big
difference between writing code and the selling and marketing for it.
> Duck...
You may well need to, if you post propaganda like yours. ;) I'm just
regreting that I didn't archive any of the really stupid anti-Lisp,
pro-C/C++ arguments that we used to see, before 1995. However, it's
possible that we may see a few more, real soon now.
Curiously, Java appears to be taking some of the flak that may have
once been destined for Lisp. I wonder why this is? What is it that
makes Java or Lisp a threat to C++? If the arguments used to support
C++ are true, then nothing can touch it, end of story. The very fact
that C++ programmers so frequently attack "rival" languages suggests
that its position is (perceived as being) _not_ so secure.
If there are any archives of comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.tcl, etc, then
I recommend checking them, just in case you have any doubts. You may
well find them rather enlightening. Alternately, you might just find
them discouraging, as I recall the Lisp people having some damn good
answers. Browsing a few of them might convince you that there are
better ways of spending your time, and ours than trying to propagate a
few malicious - and false - memes about progamming languages.
The "attacks" on Tcl in _this_ thread have been, by contrast,
relatively well informed and very fair, which doesn't mean much. We've
had a few "hello, world" examples of code, which prove nothing except
how people will use trivial problems to "demonstrate" the (alleged)
superiority of one tool over another. At least there's little of the
clueless arguments that we've seen in the past. It's more like a
reasonable difference of opinions, backed up by some _possibly_ dodgy
arguments, depending on your perspective. No CS papers, unless I've
missed them, just some very silly code examples, but nowhere near as
silly as the pro-C/C++ propaganda.
Please note that I don't necessarily consider Lisp - or existing Lisp
implementations - to be "perfect". This is very subjective, as it
depends on what code you write, the platform it runs on, and who uses
it, plus a billion other factors. I _have_ been heavily criticised for
suggesting that the existing Lisp dialects and implementations are not
the only possibilties, or for pointing out a few weak areas in Lisp
implementations (not the language itself!) for a certain platform.
Of course, I can do that for _any_ language and platform with which
I'm familiar. Please don't ask me what I think of C, or even C++. ;)
In other words, there's _always_ room for improvement! Few people
would disagree, but I bet a few _will_, that Java can improve and _is_
improving. That's because it's still a very young language, and needs
time to mature. However, even mature languages can change.
In conclusion...I recently found this in a sig.file:
There are two types of fool: one says "This is old and therefore
good.", the other says "This is new, and therefore better."
--
<URL:http://www.wildcard.demon.co.uk/> You can never browse enough
Martin Rodgers | Programmer and Information Broker | London, UK
Please note the "gubbish" in my email address.
------------------------------
Date: 11 Apr 1997 14:26:56 +0000
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: Reply to Ousterhout's reply (was Re: Ousterhout and Tcl ...)
Message-Id: <3069757616140397@naggum.no>
* lvirden@cas.org
| Note that there _are_ at least two implementations of Tcl now (One is
| in pure Java, the other in C). Does that move
| it into the 'language' arena, despite there not being a formal definition?
the first sentence after the sentence you quoted answered your question.
to quote myself:
languages exhibit the _defining_ property that there is a specification
of the syntax, semantics, etc, apart from any implementation; or,
briefly, that specification is superior in importance to
implementation.
you don't get a language merely by reimplementing a tool. you get a
language when the two (or more) implementations (in danger of diverting)
need to agree on the language they implement in some formal way and use (or
write) a specification to help that process.
why is this such a terribly complex thing to grasp?
#\Erik
--
I'm no longer young enough to know everything.
------------------------------
Date: 11 Apr 1997 13:31:39 GMT
From: hclsmith@tallships.istar.ca (Hume Smith)
Subject: Re: Reply to Ousterhout's reply (was Re: Ousterhout and Tcl ...)
Message-Id: <5ilefr$jdq@news.istar.ca>
>In article <5ihaol$n3g@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>,
>cosc19z5@bayou.uh.edu <cosc19z5@Bayou.UH.EDU> wrote:
>>As for Tcl, it's there for one reason and one reason only -- strong
>>corporate backing. We've got a powerful company that wants to
>>make a quick buck and therefore is using its clout to force
>>Tcl down our throats. This is the same tactic used by charlatans
>>like Micro$oft. Indeed that's the only possible explanation
>>as to why a glorified text preprocessor would even get a second
>>look -- that and the fact that it is riding on the coattails
>>of Tk.
put "Java" instead of "Tcl", and you'd be right. the fact is, Tcl existed
before Tk, and was used long before Sun took it up (i never have figured out
why Sun got so interested in it, actually, especially considering JO demanded
they had to keep the core non-proprietary). i would say, that by far the most
significant thing Sun has done for Tcl is fund and coordinate the multiplatform
work - neither the language nor its builtin commands have been changed
significantly under Sun; Sun in no sense "made" Tcl. (oh, i guess i forgot the
BC; probably because i'm still too timid to try it :)
Sun did not force Tcl down my throat - in fact i was scared of what would
happen to Tcl with Sun in on it. so far it has *not* lived down to my worst
fears :) i did start using Tcl because of Tk - i was looking for something
with which to write for X - but most of my use lately has been non-Tk stuff.
(trimmed F-ups)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:47:52 -0400
From: "M. Prasad" <prasadm@not4u.polaroid.com>
Subject: Re: Reply to Ousterhout's reply (was Re: Ousterhout and Tcl ...)
Message-Id: <334E4F18.AF8@not4u.polaroid.com>
Cyber Surfer wrote:
>
> With a mighty <334D0B97.1A64@not4u.polaroid.com>,
> prasadm@not4u.polaroid.com uttered these wise words...
>
> > Lisp is rather nice, but it is the evangelists/Lisp-marketeers
> > many of us could do without. I have gotten to suspect that
> > since a programming language occupies a lot of a programmer's mind
> > and thoughts, and since programming in Lisp tends to encourage
> > the quick hack for "fooling the machine" to get what you want
> > done, the hardcore Lisp programmers tend to acquire the mindset
> > that in a newsgroup the objective is to "fool the audience" to
> > get them to believe whatever you want them to believe.
>
> Perhaps a _few people_ are a little over-zealous in their support (and
> defense) of Lisp, but I don't believe that there's a general trend
> amoung Lisp programmers - at least in comp.lang.lisp - to deceive
> anyone. In fact, I've noticed many threads in which the exact opposite
> has occured. Lisp people have gracefully responded to attacks from
> people (who, curiously, have tended to support C++) with informed and
> _easily verified_ postings, often with references to software or CS
> papers available via the Internet.
>
> > Amazingly, a lot of the hardcore ng Lisp evangelists don't even
> > seem to have learned the language or the issues well, but are good
> > at fooling the audience into believing they have! And those
> > who do know the language and the issues well will not speak
> > out if it contributes away from a "desired" fooling of the
> > audience. Contrast that with C, where in strange debates
> > involving Scott Nudd, C supporters would go out of their way
> > to correct each other if one of them stepped on the truth
> > and facts.
>
> See above. I think you've confused Lisp with C/C++. If you'd been
> reading comp.lang.lisp prior to 1995 (when the concerted attacks
> mysteriously ceased), then you'd have found the clueless attacks very
> hard to miss. As they were crossposted to a fair number of other
> newsgroups, like comp.lang.tcl and comp.lang.perl, and not just
> comp.lang.lisp and comp.lang.c++, it's possible that a number of
> people reading _this_ thread know what I'm refering to.
>
> I still hope that the C/C++ programmers posting in those threads were
> not representative of C/C++ programmers in general. Either these
> people were just using clueless arguments in the hope of "beating" a
> language that they somehow saw as a rival, or they really did believe
> it all. I can cope with propaganda, but the thought that it might've
> been _ignorance_ scares me.
>
> Still, it might explain the low quality of some of the software that
> we see. The fact that it sells, and people use it regardless of the
> bugs, the poor performance, the pathetic features, etc...well, that
> worries me, too. Just not in the same way. After all, there's a big
> difference between writing code and the selling and marketing for it.
>
> > Duck...
>
> You may well need to, if you post propaganda like yours. ;) I'm just
> regreting that I didn't archive any of the really stupid anti-Lisp,
> pro-C/C++ arguments that we used to see, before 1995. However, it's
> possible that we may see a few more, real soon now.
>
> Curiously, Java appears to be taking some of the flak that may have
> once been destined for Lisp. I wonder why this is? What is it that
> makes Java or Lisp a threat to C++? If the arguments used to support
> C++ are true, then nothing can touch it, end of story. The very fact
> that C++ programmers so frequently attack "rival" languages suggests
> that its position is (perceived as being) _not_ so secure.
>
> If there are any archives of comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.tcl, etc, then
> I recommend checking them, just in case you have any doubts. You may
> well find them rather enlightening. Alternately, you might just find
> them discouraging, as I recall the Lisp people having some damn good
> answers. Browsing a few of them might convince you that there are
> better ways of spending your time, and ours than trying to propagate a
> few malicious - and false - memes about progamming languages.
>
> The "attacks" on Tcl in _this_ thread have been, by contrast,
> relatively well informed and very fair, which doesn't mean much. We've
> had a few "hello, world" examples of code, which prove nothing except
> how people will use trivial problems to "demonstrate" the (alleged)
> superiority of one tool over another. At least there's little of the
> clueless arguments that we've seen in the past. It's more like a
> reasonable difference of opinions, backed up by some _possibly_ dodgy
> arguments, depending on your perspective. No CS papers, unless I've
> missed them, just some very silly code examples, but nowhere near as
> silly as the pro-C/C++ propaganda.
>
> Please note that I don't necessarily consider Lisp - or existing Lisp
> implementations - to be "perfect". This is very subjective, as it
> depends on what code you write, the platform it runs on, and who uses
> it, plus a billion other factors. I _have_ been heavily criticised for
> suggesting that the existing Lisp dialects and implementations are not
> the only possibilties, or for pointing out a few weak areas in Lisp
> implementations (not the language itself!) for a certain platform.
>
> Of course, I can do that for _any_ language and platform with which
> I'm familiar. Please don't ask me what I think of C, or even C++. ;)
>
> In other words, there's _always_ room for improvement! Few people
> would disagree, but I bet a few _will_, that Java can improve and _is_
> improving. That's because it's still a very young language, and needs
> time to mature. However, even mature languages can change.
>
> In conclusion...I recently found this in a sig.file:
>
> There are two types of fool: one says "This is old and therefore
> good.", the other says "This is new, and therefore better."
> --
> <URL:http://www.wildcard.demon.co.uk/> You can never browse enough
> Martin Rodgers | Programmer and Information Broker | London, UK
> Please note the "gubbish" in my email address.
C++ people are by and large not familiar with Lisp.
If there were comments on Lisp, it had to be people
familiar with it, the c++ newsgroups being involved
only because the original trollers posted to clc++
in hopes of attracting converts.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 14:25:22 GMT
From: posenj@lancet.co.za (Kevin Posen)
Subject: sendmail equivalent for MS-DOS/Windows?
Message-Id: <334e492a.1238446@news.saix.net>
Hi.
Sorry that this is not directly related to Perl, but is there a dos
equivalent for the Unix program 'sendmail'.
I need something that I can se to send mail from within my Perl script.
Thanks,
Kevin Posen
------------------------------
Date: 11 Apr 1997 11:01:42 GMT
From: lvirden@cas.org
Subject: Re: Ugly Versus Elegant (Was: Reply to Ousterhout's reply)
Message-Id: <5il5mm$me2@srv13s4.cas.org>
According to Thant Tessman <thant@acm.org>:
:People *think* they will be more productive using C++ over a dozen other
:more productive and easier to learn languages because of the huge investment
:people have already made in gathering experience using C. And as someone
:has already pointed out, Tcl is only popular because people refuse to give
:up C++ and Tcl happens to address some of C++'s weaknesses.
I don't think this idea of why Tcl is popular isn't the general case.
There probably are some folk who believe this way. However, in general,
the folk I come in contact with seem to use Tcl because a) the applications
they want are written in Tcl/Tk, b) they want a very small, easy to teach
to non-programmer, extension language for their application, or c) they
want a small, easy to use, language for quickly putting together X
Window system applications. The most recent trend has been contact from folk
who want a simple, quick, easy to use, NO COST, way to write GUIs for
Windows.
--
Larry W. Virden INET: lvirden@cas.org
<URL:http://www.teraform.com/%7Elvirden/> <*> O- "We are all Kosh."
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should
be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:21:14 -0600
From: Laurent_Filhol@HP-France-om8.om.hp.com
Subject: use Win32::ODBC :Parse exception
Message-Id: <860768380.625@dejanews.com>
I've just loaded the latest version of perl (5.003_07 build 306)
and I ve always a problem with win32::ODBC add-on.
When i compile my script i have : Parse exception
I have not this error when i don't used the Win32::ODBC...
thanks for your help
regards
Laurent
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 07:53:08 -0400
From: David Collier-Brown <davecb@canada.sun.com>
Subject: Re: What does "UNIX" stand for.. (Re: Who makes more $$..)
Message-Id: <334E2624.3E1B@canada.sun.com>
Someon wrote:Lawrence Kirby wrote:
> >Actually, "UNIX", (originally intended to be spelled as "Unics" and
> >later, "Unix") was a pun on Multics which was one of Unix predecessors.
> >Multics stood for "MULTiplexed Information and Computer System"
> >(watch for those capitals). "UNIX" stands for "UNiplexed Information
> >and Computer System". My references: FAQ for comp.unix.shell and a
> >copy of original Multics manual. I think I also saw "UNIX" interpreted
> >that way in one of O'Reilly books on Unix programming.
>
Lawrence Kirby wrote:
> > That looks suspiciously like somebody's guess of how they think it ought to
> be.
That's fairly close. The joke was ``What do you get when you
cut the balls off Multics? A Eunuch!" (pronounced unics or unix).
Unics was used as a possible spelling in some discussions, but
apparently didn't make it as far as the published manuals.
--dave (formerly DRBrown.TSDC@Hi-Multics.ARPA) c-b
--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify some people
185 Ellerslie Ave., | and astonish the rest. -- Mark Twain
Willowdale, Ontario | davecb@hobbes.ss.org, canada.sun.com
N2M 1Y3. 416-223-8968 | http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb
------------------------------
Date: 11 Apr 1997 00:44:39 -0400
From: steffi@dgs.dgsys.com (Robert Nicholson)
Subject: Why doesn't this work LD_LIBRARY_PATH
Message-Id: <5ikfjn$ti@DGS.dgsys.com>
OK I'm trying to build my own local libnet in ~/lib/perl5
$ perl bla.pl
Can't find loadable object for module IO in @INC
(/export/home3/steffi/lib/perl5/sun4-solaris
/export/home3/steffi/lib/perl5 /usr/local/lib/perl5/sun4-solaris/5.003
/usr/local/lib/perl5 /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/sun4-solaris
/usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl .) at
/export/home3/steffi/lib/perl5/IO/Handle.pm line 229
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at
/export/home3/steffi/lib/perl5/IO/File.pm line 103.
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at bla.pl line 14.
$ echo $LD_LIBRARY_PATH
/usr/lib:/home3/steffi/IO-1.15/blib/arch/auto/IO
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 07:11:07 -0600
From: Laurent_Filhol@HP-France-om8.om.hp.com
Subject: Win32::ODBC : need help!
Message-Id: <860752032.22726@dejanews.com>
I've just downloaded Win32::ODBC and I have followed the instruction to
install it
so, the ODBC.pm and the odbc.pll are in the right place
But when I write a simple Perl Script, the compilation aborted on the
line:
use Win32::ODBC
I have this:
Can't locate Win32/ODBC.pm in @INC at C:\dbWeb\NTCCdata\script\form1.pl
line 15.
my script is situated in C:\dbWeb\data..... it's not a problem for the
other script which don't used the Win32::ODBC extension
is it a problem for this particular script?
thanks forany help..
regards
Laurent
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:32:45 GMT
From: webmaster@componentweb.com (nick^)
Subject: Re: Working perl script... not running with HTTP get.
Message-Id: <334e2ea0.11880135@news.come.net.uk>
On Tue, 08 Apr 1997 10:25:04 GMT, webmaster@componentweb.com (nick^)
wrote:
>I have got a form to mail script working on my server. I cannot make
>any scripts I have written work in the same way from an HTTP GET.
>I have written a search script, which runs on my machine. I have had
>problems making the script run on the web server. To debug the cause,
>I have written a very simple script. It works when called from the
>IRIX command line but I get a server misconfiguration error when I use
>a submit button on a web browser form (Netscape/ MSIE). I have chmod
>755 the script.
>
>I expect "Hello World" to be displayed on the web browser when I do a
>GET from a web browser form.
>
>I get the "Server misconfiguration error..." message.
>
>Here's the script:
>#!/usr/bin/perl
># Program to do the obvious
>#
>print 'Hello world xxx.'; # Print a message
>
There are many helpful people on this newsgroup, Thank you for your
help.
I received a few replies pointing out the missing header.
The header was a problem, but there was a less obvious problem... I
edited the file in a win/dos editor which places ASCII 13,10 at the
and of the line, in the normal DOS fashion. This causes IRIX to
mis-interpret the file header and not run PERL.
I have now got the debugging program (hello world...) working.
I had another problem today where PERL on the IRIX kept hanging on the
program I have written. The problem was not shown by the -w or -wc
switch. I had to debug by cutting code out until I found the offending
piece (YUCK!).
I had two lines searching $_ and returning back to a specific foreach
if found thus:
if (/Dollar Values/) {next filecycle}
if (/<\/pre>/i) {next blockcycle}
The first searches for the string 'Dollar Values', the second for
'</pre>'or '</PRE>'. Both these lines of code were causing the program
to hang. (these both work OK on my perl5, 32 bit).
I overcame the hang by:
$crit1='Dollar Values';
$crit2='<\/pre>';
if (/$crit1/) {next filecycle}
if (/$crit2/i) {next blockcycle}
This is'nt a pretty way of coding, is there something wrong with my
syntax or with the PERL interpreter? Is there any way I can more
quickly debug such problems?
Regards
Nick.
>Parameters will be passed from the form to the URL to the environment
>and these will be ignored, Right?
>
>Have i missed a basic requirement when using a perl script called with
>an HTTP GET, or should it run as I expect?
>
>Regards
>
>Nick.
------------------------------
Date: 8 Mar 97 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97)
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.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.misc (and this Digest), send your
article to perl-users@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
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.
The Meta-FAQ, an article containing information about the FAQ, is
available by requesting "send perl-users meta-faq". The real FAQ, as it
appeared last in the newsgroup, can be retrieved with the request "send
perl-users FAQ". Due to their sizes, neither the Meta-FAQ nor the FAQ
are included in the digest.
The "mini-FAQ", which is an updated version of the Meta-FAQ, is
available by requesting "send perl-users mini-faq". It appears twice
weekly in the group, but is not distributed in the digest.
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 V8 Issue 279
*************************************
