[8760] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2378 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Wed Apr 22 13:17:25 1998
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 98 10:06:56 -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 Wed, 22 Apr 1998 Volume: 8 Number: 2378
Today's topics:
Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ? <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ? (Andre L.)
Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ? <birgitt@order.booktraders.com>
Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ? <rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu>
Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ? <sneaker@earthling.net>
Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ? <ljz@asfast.com>
Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ? (Craig Berry)
Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ? (Craig Berry)
Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ? (Andrew M. Langmead)
Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ? <birgitt@order.booktraders.com>
Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ? <merlyn@stonehenge.com>
Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ? <jdporter@min.net>
Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ? <dtbaker_@flash.net>
Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ? <birgitt@order.booktraders.com>
Re: Array / List question <road@apdo.com>
Re: Array / List question <jdporter@min.net>
Re: Array / List question <lr@hpl.hp.com>
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 17:22:00 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
To: Birgitt Funk <birgitt@order.booktraders.com>
Subject: Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ?
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980419101535.1173I-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, Birgitt Funk wrote:
> Subject: Are there things NOT answered yet ?
Yes, it turns that there are questions about Perl which haven't been
addressed sufficiently in the Perl docs and in the FAQ. Those will, in
fact, be the very questions asked daily in the new (proposed)
comp.lang.perl.moderated newsgroup.
Although I'm looking forward to seeing this newsgroup created, I fear that
c.l.p.misc will become devoid of people who can give good answers, and
that it may become, as my pal Randal says, "the stupid leading the blind".
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 14:44:54 -0500
From: alecler@cam.org (Andre L.)
Subject: Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ?
Message-Id: <alecler-1904981444540001@dialup-815.hip.cam.org>
Hm. This subject line is an interesting philosophical issue...
... to which an answer already exists in a book somewhere, so I feel no
need to respond.
A.L.,
shutting down the puter & going fishing
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 15:40:19 -0400
From: Birgitt Funk <birgitt@order.booktraders.com>
Subject: Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ?
Message-Id: <353A5323.41304BA3@order.booktraders.com>
Andre L. wrote:
>
> Hm. This subject line is an interesting philosophical issue...
>
> ... to which an answer already exists in a book somewhere, so I feel no
> need to respond.
>
> A.L.,
> shutting down the puter & going fishing
No, it is a serious statistical question.
I want to know from the experts who watch this
newsgroup since its beginnings, how large the
percentage of questions is for whom you would find
answers ONLY in cplm and nowhere else (not in books,
FAQs, DOCs or other groups).
I want to shut down the puter & go reading,
(at a lake to do catch some fishs at the same time 8-))
but like to know if I would miss something stopping to
search for answers to my questions in cplm, as I am not
sure of how big a chunck of them would be ONLY addressed
here.
And I won't post them here before having searched cplm
archives first, as I wanna be a well behaved student.
So ... to me that is statistics, but I admit I feel
silly to post the question and know it deserves some
flames as it is too much related to Perl. 8-)
Birgitt Funk
E-mail is an open duct into your central nervous system.
It occupies the brain and reduces productivity. (Michael Dertouzos, MIT)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 18:41:03 -0400
From: Ronald J Kimball <rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu>
Subject: Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ?
Message-Id: <353A7D87.64A760B8@coos.dartmouth.edu>
Birgitt Funk wrote:
>
> Andre L. wrote:
> >
> > Hm. This subject line is an interesting philosophical issue...
>
> No, it is a serious statistical question.
I'm sorry, it is anything but a serious statistical question.
Unless, of course, you actually have a method for enumerating all the
questions which could possibly be asked?
:-)
> I want to know from the experts who watch this
> newsgroup since its beginnings, how large the
> percentage of questions is for whom you would find
> answers ONLY in cplm and nowhere else (not in books,
> FAQs, DOCs or other groups).
Take the set of all possible questions. Subtract the questions which are
answered in the FAqs, DOCs, or other groups. Subtract the questions which
have not yet been answered (which you know from answering your original
question. ;-) The remainder is the set of all questions which are answered
ONLY in clpm and nowhere else.
I don't think anyone has bothered to count all the possible questions, let
alone determine which ones have been answered only in clpm.
--
_ / ' _ / - aka - rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu
( /)//)//)(//)/( Ronald J. Kimball chipmunk@m-net.arbornet.org
/ http://www.ziplink.net/~rjk/
"It's funny 'cause it's true ... and vice versa."
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 1998 23:16:35 GMT
From: Bill 'Sneex' Jones <sneaker@earthling.net>
Subject: Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ?
Message-Id: <353A8439.AC494D76@earthling.net>
PMFJI:
:-) For another view, I have been hanging out
here for about 4 months now; programmed in Perl
for about 1 year. I would have to say that MOST,
about 70% of the questions here are asked
mostly all the time, I'm no expert, but even I
would say that just about 70% of them are
basically the same question - most of the posters
think their not, but after researching they would find
that the questions are pretty close to the same ones
asked here last week or last month.
What stikes me as funny is that they appear to
be 'migratory' or even seasonal...
But probably mostly book related. I just picked
up three new ones today - Advanced Perl Programming,
Effective Perl Programming, and CGI.pm ( a blue
book with a blue printy type cover.) As I looked
thru them, I would swear I have see those questions
before...
:-)
__________________________
Bill Jones...............|
Sneaker's Nest...........|
Chasecreek Systemhouse...|
------------------------------
Date: 19 Apr 1998 20:35:14 -0400
From: Lloyd Zusman <ljz@asfast.com>
Subject: Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ?
Message-Id: <ltu37ps531.fsf@asfast.com>
Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com> writes:
> On Sun, 19 Apr 1998, Birgitt Funk wrote:
>
> > Subject: Are there things NOT answered yet ?
>
> Yes, it turns that there are questions about Perl which haven't been
> addressed sufficiently in the Perl docs and in the FAQ. Those will, in
> fact, be the very questions asked daily in the new (proposed)
> comp.lang.perl.moderated newsgroup.
>
> Although I'm looking forward to seeing this newsgroup created, I fear that
> c.l.p.misc will become devoid of people who can give good answers, and
> that it may become, as my pal Randal says, "the stupid leading the blind".
Well, if that's a concern of yours and Randal's, you both could always
continue to post to c.l.p.misc even after c.l.p.moderated comes into
existence.
--
Lloyd Zusman
ljz@asfast.com
------------------------------
Date: 20 Apr 1998 03:22:20 GMT
From: cberry@cinenet.net (Craig Berry)
Subject: Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ?
Message-Id: <6hef1c$sj2$2@marina.cinenet.net>
Ronald J Kimball (rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu) wrote:
: Birgitt Funk wrote:
: > Andre L. wrote:
: > > Hm. This subject line is an interesting philosophical issue...
: > No, it is a serious statistical question.
:
: I'm sorry, it is anything but a serious statistical question.
:
: Unless, of course, you actually have a method for enumerating all the
: questions which could possibly be asked?
Do I sense an impending RFD for comp.lang.perl.epistemology?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
--*-- Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
| Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/
"Every man and every woman is a star."
------------------------------
Date: 20 Apr 1998 03:24:26 GMT
From: cberry@cinenet.net (Craig Berry)
Subject: Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ?
Message-Id: <6hef5a$sj2$3@marina.cinenet.net>
Lloyd Zusman (ljz@asfast.com) wrote:
: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com> writes:
: > Although I'm looking forward to seeing this newsgroup created, I fear that
: > c.l.p.misc will become devoid of people who can give good answers, and
: > that it may become, as my pal Randal says, "the stupid leading the blind".
:
: Well, if that's a concern of yours and Randal's, you both could always
: continue to post to c.l.p.misc even after c.l.p.moderated comes into
: existence.
Buddhists refer to such a selfless person as a Bodhisatva. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
--*-- Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
| Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/
"Every man and every woman is a star."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:57:12 GMT
From: aml@world.std.com (Andrew M. Langmead)
Subject: Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ?
Message-Id: <Erpw7E.4J4@world.std.com>
Birgitt Funk <birgitt@order.booktraders.com> writes:
>I want to know from the experts who watch this
>newsgroup since its beginnings, how large the
>percentage of questions is for whom you would find
>answers ONLY in cplm and nowhere else (not in books,
>FAQs, DOCs or other groups).
I haven't been here since the beginning, but it has been a
while. There are potentially a huge number of questions that can't be
answered in books right now because the questions haven't been found
yet. (Of course, once they are found, then they may become a subject
in a book.)
Here is an analogy that I've used before:
The syntax of perl is a lot like the pieces of a Lego set. They are a
bunch of very uninteresting pieces that can be put to together in an
infinate number of ways. Questions about the individual pieces aren't
going to be very interesting. (These would be similar to most of the
questions that are asked that are in the man pages.) Questions that
have nothing to do with the Legos, like where to buy a replacement
battery for the motor controller aren't very interesting, especially
for people building non-motoroized Lego structures. (Those would be
similar to the CGI questions.)
But once you rule out those two catagories, there is still a huge
number of things that can be discussed, they may (or may not) involve
references to the type of problem being worked on, but they deal with
the interaction between perl and the subject.
For an expermiment, I just took a look at the the comp.lang.perl.misc
articles in my news spool (which seems to have articles from April 6
to the present), and flagged the ones that sounded (or I rembered as
being) "interesting" to me. I came up with about 30 threads out of
about 350. (I'm not going to give the list, because what is
interesting to me may not be to others, and I don't want to debate
what my definition of "interesting")
Also consider, within the last week, there was a post from Randal
Schwartz in which he claimed "That just shocked me" and "How bizarre"
in a thread that was basically about syntax. Perl has the advantage
over Legos here because the pieces themselves can be much more
interesting.
--
Andrew Langmead
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 11:09:16 -0400
From: Birgitt Funk <birgitt@order.booktraders.com>
Subject: Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ?
Message-Id: <353B651C.EE8C7DB@order.booktraders.com>
Ronald J Kimball wrote:
> Birgitt Funk wrote:
> > No, it is a serious statistical question.
>
> I'm sorry, it is anything but a serious statistical question.
>
> Unless, of course, you actually have a method for enumerating
> all the questions which could possibly be asked?
No, but may be a nice soul could give his best estimate
(thanks for the ones who have already emailed me privately
their opinion).
If the experts get frustrated to wade through hundreds of
questions each day, making a decision which ones might be
worth of being answered, so get new learners who ask
themselves if they should do the same thing just to know
if their questions were already answered here.
a. We are supposed to find out if our questions have been
answered already here, don't we ?
b. We need to make a decision if we couldn't find an answer
faster in looking somewhere else.
You don't want to tell me that
a. to learn programming and Perl from scratch is something
you might NOT think twice about HOW to approach it;
b. if the experts want a selection of questions which
can be handled more easily so do the incoming newbie
learners. I certainly do.
I saw some good advice here "Suggested Research Methods"
below. That and some guess about my "statistical" question
is what I was looking for.
> Take the set of all possible questions. Subtract the
> questions which are answered in the FAqs, DOCs, or other
> groups. Subtract the questions which have not yet been
> answered (which you know from answering your original
> question. ;-)
> The remainder is the set of all questions which are answered
> ONLY in clpm and nowhere else.
>
Thanks for the lesson, reminds me of classes I took twentyfive
years ago, just the difference being that teachers then knew
a bit better when to answer what and how. 8-).
> I don't think anyone has bothered to count all the possible
> questions, alone determine which ones have been answered
> only in clpm.
Yes, but may be you have a good overall feeling if that
percentage of questions is in the overall range of 5 - 10
percent or in the 40 - 50 percent.
That's all I was after.
I feel really sorry to have caused such a useless thread.
I thought my question was pretty simple and straight forward.
Birgitt Funk
P.S.
And BTW,
a. I am sorry for my spelling and grammar mistakes in my
posts;
b. If Tom Phoenix worries about experts leaving the c.l.p.m
for a moderated group and leaving the "herd" alone or
under "guidance" of the "blind", his worries are justified.
It's pretty clear that he and Randal Schwartz and all
the others who tirelessly post answers here, can't continue
doing so for ever. So, one better finds a solution.
One would be to create something like a "apprentrice level"
group (Lehrling), answered by "journeymen" (Gesellen), another
for "journeymen"., answered by "foremen(?)/maestros/master(?)"
(Meister) and the genii out there you leave alone and in peace
to write some of these great "open source code" programs.
But as all this is pretty difficult to organize online, I
think I am going to retire to my books.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:04:21 GMT
From: Randal Schwartz <merlyn@stonehenge.com>
To: Birgitt Funk <birgitt@order.booktraders.com>
Subject: Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ?
Message-Id: <8czphg7a5d.fsf@gadget.cscaper.com>
>>>>> "Birgitt" == Birgitt Funk <birgitt@order.booktraders.com> writes:
Birgitt> b. If Tom Phoenix worries about experts leaving the c.l.p.m
Birgitt> for a moderated group and leaving the "herd" alone or
Birgitt> under "guidance" of the "blind", his worries are justified.
Birgitt> It's pretty clear that he and Randal Schwartz and all
Birgitt> the others who tirelessly post answers here, can't continue
Birgitt> doing so for ever.
Well, we can, if we can eliminate the FAQs and the off-topic posts. I
*never* tire of helping out a newbie, or butting heads with a problem
posed by a seasoned veteran. In fact, I wished I had about twice the
amount of time to do that. I *quickly* tire of "read the manual to
me" posts though.
On the other hand, Tom doesn't seem to get tired at all. :-)
print "Just another Perl hacker," # but not what the media calls "hacker!" :-)
## legal fund: $20,990.69 collected, $186,159.85 spent; just 133 more days
## before I go to *prison* for 90 days; email fund@stonehenge.com for details
--
Name: Randal L. Schwartz / Stonehenge Consulting Services (503)777-0095
Keywords: Perl training, UNIX[tm] consulting, video production, skiing, flying
Email: <merlyn@stonehenge.com> Snail: (Call) PGP-Key: (finger merlyn@teleport.com)
Web: <A HREF="http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/">My Home Page!</A>
Quote: "I'm telling you, if I could have five lines in my .sig, I would!" -- me
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:41:06 GMT
From: John Porter <jdporter@min.net>
Subject: Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ?
Message-Id: <353B984A.5AD1@min.net>
Birgitt Funk wrote:
>
> Ronald J Kimball wrote:
>
> > Birgitt Funk wrote:
>
> > > No, it is a serious statistical question.
> >
> > I'm sorry, it is anything but a serious statistical question.
> >
> > Unless, of course, you actually have a method for enumerating
> > all the questions which could possibly be asked?
>
> No, but may be a nice soul could give his best estimate
> (thanks for the ones who have already emailed me privately
> their opinion).
Here's my attempt.
Let @p be the enumerated set of all possible perl programs,
and @a be the enumerated set of all perl primitives, then
the number of possible questions ($#q) is given by:
1
$#q = ------------------
@a $#a+1
---- + -------
@p $#p+1
This expression can be simplified, but the resulting
expression obscures the meaning.
> I thought my question was pretty simple and straight forward.
It was. I just don't the answer is one you want.
> One would be to create something like a "apprentrice level"
> group (Lehrling), answered by "journeymen" (Gesellen), another
> for "journeymen"., answered by "foremen(?)/maestros/master(?)"
> (Meister) and the genii out there you leave alone and in peace
> to write some of these great "open source code" programs.
I disagree. The only way the privates are going to benefit from
the experience of the generals is by commingling with them in
the same space. (Ooh. Consorting? Fraternizing?)
By segregating them, no osmosis takes place.
John Porter
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:41:58 -0600
From: Dan Baker <dtbaker_@flash.net>
Subject: Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ?
Message-Id: <353BA506.2D93@flash.net>
John Porter wrote:
> I disagree. The only way the privates are going to benefit from
> the experience of the generals is by commingling with them in
> the same space. (Ooh. Consorting? Fraternizing?)
> By segregating them, no osmosis takes place.
------------
...and you just never know when a newbie will come up with a whole new
approach and solve an age-old problem. ;) Or at least get you thinking
about it from a new perspective.
D
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:44:50 -0400
From: Birgitt Funk <birgitt@order.booktraders.com>
Subject: Re: Are there things NOT answered yet ?
Message-Id: <353BB3C2.43EA4714@order.booktraders.com>
Dan Baker wrote:
>
> John Porter wrote:
>
> > I disagree. The only way the privates are going to benefit from
> > the experience of the generals is by commingling with them in
> > the same space. (Ooh. Consorting? Fraternizing?)
> > By segregating them, no osmosis takes place.
> ------------
>
> ...and you just never know when a newbie will come up with a whole new
> approach and solve an age-old problem. ;) Or at least get you thinking
> about it from a new perspective.
>
> D
Yes, that's true too. I have no idea then how you want to
tame the flood.
Thanks to all for all the answers. I know now, what I
wanted to know (range of questions not answered somewhere
else adaequately or similarly about 10 - 30 percent dependent
on who you are) and yes, I will lurk and may be turn to this
group with questions, though I admit to read so many smart men's
answers can get quite distracting. (I didn't know how I old I
must have gotten to underestimate the experts' energy level :-).
Thanks again, I am ready to go now.
Regards,
Birgitt Funk
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 19:45:15 +0200
From: "A.P." <road@apdo.com>
Subject: Re: Array / List question
Message-Id: <353B89AB.31CC0E8A@apdo.com>
John Porter wrote:
> You mean besides "there is no general rule for converting a list to
> a scalar", which is probably the most repeated phrase is clpm besides
> "there's more than one way to do it"?
>
Sorry, what does clpm mean?
> Always remember that what sometimes looks like a list is not a list,
> if the context is scalar. You know that in this expression:
> $n = ( 4, 5, 6 );
> this is not a list, but a C-style comma operator. It evaluates to
> the value of the expression after the last comma.
That's really what I needed to know.
> > @j=@i[@i]**2; #really the same IN THIS CASE as @j=@i**2
>
> But they're NOT the same.
>
Yes, in this case they are, as I built @i like an identity @i=(0..32)
> > wouldn't square all the elements of the array, it was just an example.
> > Anyway it was a bit silly, I should have written @j=@i**2 for the sake of
> > clearity.
>
> The exponentiation operator provides a SCALAR context to its left
> operand. @i in a scalar context gives the number of elements in
> the array. You're going to square the number of elements in the
> array?
I haven't expressed myself quite clearly. I wrote @j=@i**2; like a way to 'show'
what I wanted to do. I knew it wouldn't work, it's just a way of expressing it so
that everybody could figure out what I pretended to do.
Thanks John, you really have been very helpful. I hope someday I can give it
back!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 18:52:28 GMT
From: John Porter <jdporter@min.net>
Subject: Re: Array / List question
Message-Id: <353B9AF4.146C@min.net>
A.P. wrote:
>
> John Porter wrote:
>
> > You mean besides "there is no general rule for converting a list to
> > a scalar", which is probably the most repeated phrase is clpm besides
> > "there's more than one way to do it"?
>
> Sorry, what does clpm mean?
no, I'm sorry! I meant to say "in clpm", not "is clpm".
clpm is the newsgroup we are now reading.
> > > @j=@i[@i]**2; #really the same IN THIS CASE as @j=@i**2
> >
> > But they're NOT the same.
> >
>
> Yes, in this case they are, as I built @i like an identity @i=(0..32)
No, A.P., they are not. Why must you insist on a falsehood?
Go and execute the two forms yourself, and you will see.
You should have done this already, but you haven't, and since you
won't take my word for it, perhaps you'll believe perl.
DB<1> @i = (1,2,3,4);
DB<2> X i
@i = (
0 1
1 2
2 3
3 4
)
DB<3> @j = @i ** 2;
DB<4> X j
@j = (
0 16
)
DB<5> @j = @i[@i] ** 2;
DB<6> X j
@j = (
0 0
)
In other words, @i**2 squares the number of elements in @i;
@i[@i]**2 squares the last element in @i. Are these the same?
Are 0 and 16 the same? Does ( 0 == 16 ) evaluate True?
> I haven't expressed myself quite clearly. I wrote @j=@i**2; like a way to 'show'
> what I wanted to do. I knew it wouldn't work, it's just a way of expressing it so
> that everybody could figure out what I pretended to do.
That's fine; I don't think you were misunderstood.
Which answer did you find most useful?
Was it mine? Huh? Huh? Was it? Huh? (;-)
@j = map { $_ ** 2 } @i;
hth,
John Porter
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:06:40 -0700
From: "Larry Rosler" <lr@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Array / List question
Message-Id: <6hgke5$iqb@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>
John Porter wrote in message <353B9AF4.146C@min.net>...
>A.P. wrote:
>> John Porter wrote:
...
> DB<1> @i = (1,2,3,4);
>
> DB<2> X i
>@i = (
> 0 1
> 1 2
> 2 3
> 3 4
>)
> DB<3> @j = @i ** 2;
>
> DB<4> X j
>@j = (
> 0 16
>)
> DB<5> @j = @i[@i] ** 2;
>
> DB<6> X j
>@j = (
> 0 0
>)
>
>In other words, @i**2 squares the number of elements in @i;
>@i[@i]**2 squares the last element in @i. Are these the same?
>Are 0 and 16 the same? Does ( 0 == 16 ) evaluate True?
...
>hth,
>John Porter
I'm baffled by this. What does @i[@i] have to do with the last element
in @i? As I read this, it is an array slice, whose value for the data
shown above should be ( 2, 3, 4, undef ). Its length is 4, so squaring
it gives 16, regardless of the values in the array. Try it again with
other values, and you will see.
--
Larry Rosler
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
lr@hpl.hp.com
------------------------------
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 2378
**************************************
