[9039] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2657 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Thu May 21 04:08:11 1998
Date: Thu, 21 May 98 01:00:31 -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 Thu, 21 May 1998 Volume: 8 Number: 2657
Today's topics:
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community. <house@usq.edu.au>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community. <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community. <house@usq.edu.au>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (John W. Eaton)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <zkessin@shell1.tiac.net>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil (Olivier Galibert)
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: Perl and C++, MFC. <jll@skynet.be>
Re: regexp for strings of chars (Ilya Zakharevich)
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:22:18 +1000
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community.
Message-Id: <3563D62A.2821D6FE@usq.edu.au>
Andi Kleen wrote:
> Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> > I beg to differ with you. You are hurting our community. Please stop
> > the lies.
> What lies? When I can't modify something to suit my needs it is not
> free for me. Your definition of "free" might differ of course, I'm
> not refering to the free as in "no cost" but to the free as in "freedom
> of speech".
> Of course it is nice of you that you make your documentation available
> at no cost, but please don't claim that it is free.
But it IS free! 'Free' has two meanings: I am free when
I have freedom - that's one meaning. An object is free
when it costs nothing - the other meaning. The FSF has
perverted the word by applying the word to an object
when they mean that the user of the object has freedom;
that's a subtle but serious twist of meaning which - like
many word changes bandied about by the politically correct -
results in confusion. And I think the confusion was most
likely intended. "Hey, I want to give my code away free!"
"Great! Use the GPL - it covers free software!" And the
person gives away something other than what they intended.
--
Ron House
house@usq.edu.au
An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but
because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space"
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 07:24:35 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community.
Message-Id: <6k0krj$dn2$4@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc, Ron House <house@usq.edu.au> writes:
:And I think the confusion was most
:likely intended. "Hey, I want to give my code away free!"
:"Great! Use the GPL - it covers free software!" And the
:person gives away something other than what they intended.
That's right -- they have surrendered their freedom. They are now *less*
free than they were. It's a semantic trick, mildly clever but underhanded.
And enforcing this perversion on programming documentation is, if you
will forgive me for indulging in well-justified conspiracy musings,
also part of their plot, a plot that I feel Perl should have no part in.
Perl has never told people what to do before, and it should not now.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:42:54 +1000
From: Ron House <house@usq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community.
Message-Id: <3563DAFE.3914BB50@usq.edu.au>
chris+usenet@netmonger.net wrote:
> I can understand why RMS would be unhappy to see
> that his dream of a free operating system finally came true and the
> GNU project was getting almost no credit for their part of it.
Why should he be unhappy? His manifesto makes it
abundantly clear that he thinks a programmer has
no right to remuneration for his work, and his
GPL denies other programmers the right to
acknowledgement. In Olde England, Thomas Cromwell
(I am nearly certain it was he) made a law that
the accused had no right to speak in his own
defence. Guess what: he was the law's first
victim!
> RMS believes that his style of free software and his licensing system
> are the best way to do good for the computing community. Is he not
> allowed to have this opinion?
Sure, if he doesn't go ballistic when he is denied
the right he denies to others.
> He is mad at O'Reilly because they sell
> a lot of books about GNU software but they don't donate anything to
> the FSF.
Is FSF s'ware free, or is that just propaganda?
--
Ron House
house@usq.edu.au
An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but
because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space"
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 06:55:59 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k0j5v$bma$5@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In gnu.misc.discuss,
Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
:This documentation is not a utilitarian piece of software, it's a personal
:statement by RMS. What purpose would it serve for people to be able to
:modify it?
Same thing on my documentation. If it's good enough for RMS, it's
good enough for me.
:Works of art, criticism, rhetoric, etc. are generally not enhanced by being
:modifiable. Their purpose is mainly to exhibit the creator's beliefs,
So, too, with my writing. My prose is my prose. It's not yours.
Perl is not about stripping the author of his artistic rights.
And we won't give people viruses either, which apparently we're
accidentally doing right now. That's very scary to me.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 01:46:26 -0500
From: jwe@bevo.che.wisc.edu (John W. Eaton)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <85ogwsqfy5.fsf@bevo.che.wisc.edu>
In many recent articles, Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> rants
and raves that the GNU task list calls for free documentation for
Perl.
Why all the sudden flamage? I believe that entry has been in the
tasks list for years. At least since 16 July 1993, which is the
oldest copy of the tasks list that I can find.
It's sad to see someone for whom I've had a lot of respect suddenly
start flaming like this. What snapped?
--
In the beginning, Ken Thompson | Octave: http://www.che.wisc.edu/octave
wrote the searching tool grep. | Me: http://www.che.wisc.edu/~jwe
-- A. Hume, SP&E (1988) |
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 07:01:16 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k0jfs$bma$6@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD) writes:
:You can oppose this for technical reasons, you can oppose it because it
:is a waste of effort, you can oppose it because it may lead to
:fragmentation. But you can't try to use author's "moral rights" to
:try to control other people's work.
It certainly is about an author's moral rights! They wish to give
up my author's rights on my work. They think I'm being a mean old
hoarder because I won't let them screw up my carefully worded prose.
It's part of me. It's not an equation. It is my thoughts and feelings,
my nuance. That's not theirs to destroy.
And it certainly is not a conduit of contagion of the Gnu Public Virus.
You're suppose to use the coding examples in your code if you want.
And you aren't supposed to catch the disease.
This "let's GPL the doc" is a terrible thing.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 07:13:16 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <guQ81.60$152.572215@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <6k0j5v$bma$5@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
>
>In gnu.misc.discuss,
> Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
>:This documentation is not a utilitarian piece of software, it's a personal
>:statement by RMS. What purpose would it serve for people to be able to
>:modify it?
>
>Same thing on my documentation. If it's good enough for RMS, it's
>good enough for me.
I disagree. Program documentation is utilitarian, it's not artistic or
rhetorical prose (if you want to write a poem about Perl, or an opinion
paper explaining why you think RMS is evil, I expect RMS will support your
right to put a more restrictive copyright on it). Its utility is based
primarily on its accuracy in describing the program. If you allow
modifying the program, but not the documentation, the documentation is
significantly less useful. Your copyright on the documentation doesn't
even allow it to be translated into another language (although I doubt that
you would refuse if someone asked you for permission).
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 07:15:00 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k0k9k$dn2$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In gnu.misc.discuss,
jwe@bevo.che.wisc.edu (John W. Eaton) writes:
:It's sad to see someone for whom I've had a lot of respect suddenly
:start flaming like this. What snapped?
People sent me mail. People started distributing (or told me they
would) lobotomized Perl. So I sought out why. And it distressed me.
I realized that the FSF was lying to the world by saying that Perl's 1,000
pages of document weren't free, and that this dangerous lie was hurting
Perl. It made people think they couldn't include the documentation
with the distribution. This idea of a Perl without documentation must
be stopped.
I then realized with abject horror that GPV'd documentation is a grave
threat to free software, especially Perl. That's because with 1,000
pages of free documentation in Perl--far and beyond the most extensive
free documentation of any free software--people look to it for examples
to copy into their own code. This is part of the its goal.
We must therefore remove the GPV from the Perl documentation *now*
because people are encouraged to use its examples in their code.
When they do, they just committed intellectual-property suicide, or
artistic suicide if you would. We have inadvertently furthered the
FSF jihad of denying an artist the right to make his own choices about
his software. This must end. The Perl documentation must be set free
of its GPV shackles and poison. Typhoid Larry is not a nice notion.
Are you sure that it's madness that I am staunchly supportive of shipping
Perl's free documentation with each release of Perl, and that I don't
want to take away programmers' rights to their own programs just because
they were infected with the Perl documentation? The current FSF stance
appears contrary to that, and I oppose it. If that is madness, than so
be it. It is the only road I can in a clear conscience travel.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 07:20:51 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k0kkj$dn2$3@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In gnu.misc.discuss,
Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
:I disagree. Program documentation is utilitarian, it's not artistic or
:rhetorical prose
I see that you haven't read my writings lately.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 07:23:11 GMT
From: trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k0kov$s8j$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
>In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD) writes:
>:You can oppose this for technical reasons, you can oppose it because it
>:is a waste of effort, you can oppose it because it may lead to
>:fragmentation. But you can't try to use author's "moral rights" to
>:try to control other people's work.
>It certainly is about an author's moral rights! They wish to give
>up my author's rights on my work. They think I'm being a mean old
No. They wish to replace your work with someone else's. Where does
it say "change license in perl-faq to be GPL"? Nowhere.
THEY HAVE TO WRITE THEIR OWN BOOK.
>hoarder because I won't let them screw up my carefully worded prose.
No, they are worried that a very popular tool is documented in a
proprietry fashion, and that it makes the tool itself somewhat
proprietry.
>It's part of me. It's not an equation. It is my thoughts and feelings,
>my nuance. That's not theirs to destroy.
That's touching, but they are quite free to write a Perl document.
Or do you have a monopoly on such things?
>And it certainly is not a conduit of contagion of the Gnu Public Virus.
>You're suppose to use the coding examples in your code if you want.
>And you aren't supposed to catch the disease.
Have you read your own license recently? It is not legal to copy code
examples from the perlfaq to use in commercial code without prior
written authorization. Nowhere do you allow people to use the coding
examples -- except that you can distribute the document in part for
non-commercial use. Starting with a coding example and modifying it
is of course illegal, as modification is not allowed.
So you allow *no* real use of examples. The only reason people have
been able to use them is that you haven't sent your lawyers after them.
>This "let's GPL the doc" is a terrible thing.
At least it allows *something*. And with a small change allowing free use
of examples, it is very free indeed.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 07:37:44 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k0lk8$dn2$5@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc, trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD) writes:
:No, they are worried that a very popular tool is documented in a
:proprietry fashion, and that it makes the tool itself somewhat
:proprietry.
They are wrong. Perl's documentation is free. They're making this
whole thing up.
:Have you read your own license recently? It is not legal to copy code
:examples from the perlfaq to use in commercial code without prior
:written authorization. Nowhere do you allow people to use the coding
:examples -- except that you can distribute the document in part for
:non-commercial use. Starting with a coding example and modifying it
:is of course illegal, as modification is not allowed.
I am talking about the prose, not the code. It was addressing the prose
thieves who've been robbing me. If you look at my other licence, the
one in perltoot, this spells things out clearly. I'll have to merge them.
While it is copyright by me with all rights reserved, permission
is granted to freely distribute verbatim copies of this document
provided that no modifications outside of formatting be made, and
that this notice remain intact. You are permitted and encouraged
to use its code and derivatives thereof in your own source code for
fun or for profit as you see fit.
See that? "For fun or for profit as you see fit". That, sir, is true
freedom -- freedom to let the user make their own choice. I want them
to be able to use that code WITHOUT HINDRANCE. No strings attached.
I know that's very anti-FSF of me to give something away so freely without
strings, but it's what I want to do. I think that's what Perl wants to do.
I really hate to see folks making others' decisions for them. It's morally
repugnant. I also don't want them violating my own artistic rights. This
too is a moral concern.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 03:46:35 -0400
From: Zach Kessin <zkessin@shell1.tiac.net>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <yc73ee4kqw4.fsf@shell1.tiac.net>
trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD) writes:
>
> Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
>
> >But my stuff is indeed free. It's totally gratis, a gift. That's free.
> >If you call it anything else, you're confused or lying. But you're just
> >not free to screw me over with it. That's thievery.
>
> You believe yourself part of the open source (or free) software
> community, yet you think that freedom is just about price?
>
> Please don't try telling people who have licensed their work much more
> liberally than you have licensed yours about definitions of freedom.
>
> If you want to write proprietry documentation and give away copies for
> nothing, do so. But don't get uppity when people look at your license
> and decide things would be better if they wrote a new version that
> anyone could modify.
Look I would rather Tom create the perldocs and send them out, there
is nothing wrong with it. And if any yahoo can mess with them I dont
know what I am getting, If Tom C wrote them I know I am getting
correct Info. (Which is very important).
RMS seems to think that the free software movement begins and ends
with him, while this may have been so 10 years ago it is not now. And
I'm kind of glad that one person is not the sole standard bearer for
opensource code. We have a number of Opensource projects with a number
of differenc licenses. Just because we are not doing it RMS's way does
not mean we are not doing it well.
Tom C, please keep your docs as Is, I realy like them! (And I could
not function without my copy of the Cammel book).
--Zach Kessin
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 07:03:16 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <UkQ81.59$152.572215@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <6k0idv$bma$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>,
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:
>It is imperative that no documentation be placed under the GPL due to its
>insidious viral nature. For example, the Perl documentation is meant to
>be used to take examples from to use in your programs. We want people
>to do this.
Why do you consider the documentation to be sacrosanct in this way?
Doesn't the same thing happen if someone uses the Perl source code or Perl
modules as a source of examples?
>Guess what? You just became infected with the Gnu Public Virus! That
>means you have relinquished your freedom to decide what happens to your
>own work. You've been robbed.
You haven't been robbed if you relinquished your freedom voluntarily in
exchange for something of benefit. If you voluntarily give the grocery
store $2 and receive a carton of juice, have you been robbed? At worst,
you may claim that RMS's price for use of his free software is too high,
but it's his right to set any price he wants, and it's everyone else's
right to decide whether to pay it.
Since the whole point of RMS's type of free software is to get more people
to write free software, this is perfectly consistent with his goal. His
idea is to distribute software that people will want to derive from so
badly that they'll agree to make their code free as well. Why should it
make a difference that the code is found in the documentation?
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 07:19:44 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6k0kig$dn2$2@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
:Why do you consider the documentation to be sacrosanct in this way?
:Doesn't the same thing happen if someone uses the Perl source code or Perl
:modules as a source of examples?
If so, then this is wrong. Perl will have no part of making people's
choices for them. The documentation and modules are *meant* to be copied.
Something that's meant to be copied should not carry with it an infection
that strips the author of his artistic rights of authorship. We must
not make others' decisions for them in this. They are welcome to do so
if they *wish*, but a promise extracted under duress caries no moral value.
Choice is key.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 07:28:27 GMT
From: trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD)
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6k0l2r$sg1$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
> [courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
>In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> writes:
>:Why do you consider the documentation to be sacrosanct in this way?
>:Doesn't the same thing happen if someone uses the Perl source code or Perl
>:modules as a source of examples?
>If so, then this is wrong. Perl will have no part of making people's
>choices for them. The documentation and modules are *meant* to be copied.
>Something that's meant to be copied should not carry with it an infection
>that strips the author of his artistic rights of authorship. We must
>not make others' decisions for them in this. They are welcome to do so
>if they *wish*, but a promise extracted under duress caries no moral value.
Like the way you extract promises from people not to modify you
documentation by having a strict copyright and sending around the lawyers?
It seems there is one standard for software writers, another altogether
for authors.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 07:32:00 GMT
From: galibert@pobox.com (Olivier Galibert)
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <slrn6m7m3g.4cd.galibert@renaissance.loria.fr>
In article <6k0idv$bma$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>, Tom Christiansen wrote:
>[...] For example, the Perl documentation is meant to
>be used to take examples from to use in your programs. We want people
>to do this.
You should be aware, though, that using any example from the perl FAQ
in a part of a commercial program falls under the "Commercial
Reproduction" part of the license, which says:
Commercial Reproduction
Requests for all other distribution rights, including the incorporation
in part or in full of this text or its code into commercial products
such as but not limited to books, magazine articles, or CD-ROMs, must
be made to perlfaq-legal@perl.com. Any commercial use of any portion
of this document without prior written authorization by its authors
will be subject to appropriate action.
Hence, beware that the FAQ's code is essentially "free for
non-commercial use". This also means that the faq is unfit for any
commercial distribution of perl, including linux or *BSD
distributions without an explicit authorization.
"Tom's object-oriented tutorial for perl" and the "How to embed perl
in your C program" explicitely allow for the use of the included code
in any way. The rest of the documentation is under the GPLv1.
OG.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 07:40:15 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6k0lov$dn2$6@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In gnu.misc.discuss, trd@cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson Richard DOWD) writes:
:Like the way you extract promises from people not to modify your
:documentation by having a strict copyright and sending around the lawyers?
I don't recall sending my lawyers after anyone. Why have you alleged
that I sent around lawyers regarding these documents when I have not?
Are you committing libel? :-)
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 09:24:28 +0200
From: Jean-Louis Leroy <jll@skynet.be>
Subject: Re: Perl and C++, MFC.
Message-Id: <VA.0000005e.030db62f@enterprise>
> I have a Perl program, and I want to implement additional part for this
> program (Data Base, GUI...) with MFC, C++.
>
> Does anyone know how to call Perl from C++ code (MFC) ?
> How to call C++ from Perl ?
First read perlembed and the relevant sections of the Camel and/or
Advanced Perl Programming. Then you may want to take a look at my article
'Pipes, Channels and Perl-Win32', published in the April 97 issue of Dr
Dobb's Journal.
Jean-Louis Leroy
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jl_leroy/
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 07:15:59 GMT
From: ilya@math.ohio-state.edu (Ilya Zakharevich)
Subject: Re: regexp for strings of chars
Message-Id: <6k0kbf$d8o$1@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>
[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to Larry Rosler
<lr@hpl.hp.com>],
who wrote in article <6jt7g8$5h2@hplntx.hpl.hp.com>:
> >If you read my original message, you would know the answer about ?. .
> >And qr// did not make it into 5.005 due to a strike of perl developers
> >over licensing issues.
> >
> >Ilya
>
> I found this in your original message (from May 14). To me, at least,
> it is somewhat cryptic. More than part of one sentence would be
> necessary before I were sure I understood it.
Then peruse the other part of my message which you happily removed
now: if you did not understand the definition, look on example.
But anyway, it is silly to discuss a thing which was decided to be not
worthy to implement. Now, if I remembered now what was *that* good
idea of //h discussion! One that I liked so much that I decided that
it is much better than (?. ) stuff (to enable relocatable
subexpressions). And I do not want to read all the 15000 lines of
this discussion *again* to find this gem...
On the other hand, the current atmosphere on p5p does not support
hacking any more, so maybe I will just leave the perl RE engine in the
current pitiful state...
Ilya
------------------------------
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 2657
**************************************
