[9049] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2667 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Thu May 21 17:08:20 1998
Date: Thu, 21 May 98 14:02:21 -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: 2667
Today's topics:
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Chris Nandor)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <hp@pobox.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community chris+usenet@netmonger.net
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <abraham@dina.kvl.dk>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <hp@pobox.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Ken Fox)
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 (Chris Nandor)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Chris Nandor)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (I R A Aggie)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Fergus Henderson)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community (Paul D. Smith)
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <hp@pobox.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community <hp@pobox.com>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil <hp@pobox.com>
Re: Help needed - Will pay. <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Help! setting MODE for mkdir() <jzenyuh@mindspring.com>
Re: How to handle multiple selection <rootbeer@teleport.com>
Re: Idle thoughts...Can I make this leap year function (Belg4mit)
Re: Idle thoughts...Can I make this leap year function (Tom Rokicki)
Re: Idle thoughts...Can I make this leap year function (Mark-Jason Dominus)
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 19:13:16 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k1ucc$643$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc,
robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com> writes:
:the free docs will never be as good
:as the regular ones.
Please, please stop repeating this miscarriage of truth.
The Perl documentation are free. They always have been.
They always will be.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 19:19:36 GMT
From: pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <pudge-2105981513550001@dynamic95.ply.adelphia.net>
In article <6k0e4e$r5e$1@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au>, trd@hydra.cs.mu.oz.au (Tyson
Richard DOWD) wrote:
# Please don't try telling people who have licensed their work much more
# liberally than you have licensed yours about definitions of freedom.
Because someone chooses to give away more than another, that someone is
more qualified to discuss what freedom is? How does that possibly make
any sense?
--
Chris Nandor mailto:pudge@pobox.com http://pudge.net/
MacPerl: Power and Ease (ISBN 1881957322), http://www.ptf.com/macperl/
%PGPKey = ('B76E72AD', [1024, '0824090B CE73CA10 1FF77F13 8180B6B6'])
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 19:44:46 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <wsnvhqz8l3l.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
>
> I don't care what FSF does or thinks on this matter. If they want to have
> their own meaning of free, fine. I think it is stupid, but fine. But
> when they start saying "perl does not have good free docs" in public, they
> have to realize most people will understand that outside of their little
> context, and will believe that it means that the docs either are not good,
> or they carry a cost, both of which is false and defamatory.
>
Dude, the statement in question is in a document meant for FSF
supporters/members, and is found on the FSF web site and FSF newsgroups.
I think they can safely use "free" in the same sense as "free" in
"Free Software Foundation" in this context. Give me a break.
This thread is ridiculous. It's an argument about the meaning of
"free" in some little offhand remark in the FSF todo list, and free
means the same as it does everywhere else on the FSF web site. They
even have documents explaining what they mean. Come on - you might not
like their definition, but to say it's deliberately "false" is really
pretty dense.
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 20:06:52 GMT
From: chris+usenet@netmonger.net
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k21gs$loh$1@schenectady.netmonger.net>
In article <6k1rji$1k8$1@news.cis.ohio-state.edu>,
Dave Barr <barr@cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> In article <6k1fdp$ehj$2@schenectady.netmonger.net>,
> <chris+usenet@netmonger.net> wrote:
> >will (quite naturally) say "If you want to support the FSF, buy books
> >from us instead of from that company".
>
> And have you seen their books?
That's irrelevant. You're quoting my explanation of why the FSF would
prefer that people buy their books out of context and arguing a
position I never took (that the FSF's books are good).
I don't have an opinion on the quality of the FSF's books as I have
never had occasion to purchase a book for a GNU program, from them
or anyone else.
--
Christopher Masto <chris+usenet@netmonger.net>
Director of Operations, NetMonger Communications, Inc.
"Behold the Power of Cheese"
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 22:10:10 +0200
From: Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <rj4syj4c7x.fsf@zuse.+dina.kvl.dk>
[ FUT: gnu.misc.discuss ]
barr@cis.ohio-state.edu (Dave Barr) writes:
> RMS's definition of "free software" is "free-source-license-only software".
Wrong. That is his definition of `copyleft'. His definition of free
software is much broader than copyleft.
See <URL:http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 20:04:35 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <wsnu36j8k6k.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:>
> In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com> writes:
> :the free docs will never be as good
> :as the regular ones.
>
> Please, please stop repeating this miscarriage of truth.
> The Perl documentation are free. They always have been.
> They always will be.
>
Would it help if I said,
"Your perl docs are free of cost"
and
"Your perl docs are not free according to the definition given on
www.gnu.org or www.opensource.org"
?
I think you already knew what I meant. There is no reason we should
have to use these cumbersome phrases, certainly not on
gnu.misc.discuss which is a FSF newsgroup.
Saying it's a "miscarriage of truth" is just boneheaded. You might say
that it's confusing to someone who isn't familiar with free software,
and I'll buy that. But you clearly are familiar with free software, so
when talking to you I don't know why I should have to explain the
whole thing every time.
You are making the Himalayas out of molehill. Just chill out. There is
no chance of a free[1] replacement for the O'Reilly books in the near
future, and no one from the FSF is going to steal your writing.
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
[1] In the FSF's sense - wasn't this a helpful footnote?
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 19:22:05 GMT
From: kfox@pt0204.pto.ford.com (Ken Fox)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k1ust$el36@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com>
Olof Oberg <millNO@SPAMludd.luth.se> writes:
> Ken Fox wrote:
> > Why all this talk of virii?
>
> Because work derived from GPLed work becomes GPLed too.
Hmm. I must be a virus then because my son is human too. Geez, he
must feel terrible that I "forced" him to inherit part of my DNA.
It ain't a virus if it reproduces *itself*. ;)
> So then 'people' put the virus label on GPL to spread FUD.
I thought so. Thank God (and Larry) that these lines appear in the
Perl README:
I want you to know that I create nice things like this because it
pleases the Author of my story. If this bothers you, then your
notion of Authorship needs some revision. But you can use perl
anyway. :-)
That's what the Perl community is about, right?
- Ken
--
Ken Fox (kfox@ford.com) | My opinions or statements do
| not represent those of, nor are
Ford Motor Company, Powertrain | endorsed by, Ford Motor Company.
Analytical Powertrain Methods Department |
Software Development Section | "Is this some sort of trick
| question or what?" -- Calvin
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 20:14:03 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k21ub$aie$3@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc, news@russo.org (Chris Russo) writes:
:Why try to bend the English language to your group's wishes? Why not just
:use the language correctly and be understood?
Because then you wouldn't be able to trick people into thinking
"free" when you said "free" and meant "encumbered". Every
fanatic religious or marketing group does this. It's the
"pro-life" vs "pro-choice" euphemism again.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 20:16:52 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k223k$aie$4@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc, prn@bsu.edu (Paul Neubauer) writes:
:What do you think, Tom? Would something like this be acceptable to you?
Yes, I think so. Very good job.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 20:30:17 GMT
From: pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <pudge-2105981624360001@dynamic95.ply.adelphia.net>
In article <wsnu36j8k6k.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>, robert havoc pennington
<hp@pobox.com> wrote:
# Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:>
# > In comp.lang.perl.misc,
# > robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com> writes:
# > :the free docs will never be as good
# > :as the regular ones.
# >
# > Please, please stop repeating this miscarriage of truth.
# > The Perl documentation are free. They always have been.
# > They always will be.
# >
#
# Would it help if I said,
# "Your perl docs are free of cost"
# and
# "Your perl docs are not free according to the definition given on
# www.gnu.org or www.opensource.org"
# ?
#
# I think you already knew what I meant. There is no reason we should
# have to use these cumbersome phrases, certainly not on
# gnu.misc.discuss which is a FSF newsgroup.
Who gives a rip if Tom knows what you mean? This discussion is read by
many people who do not, and that is something that is your cross to bear.
If you want to knowingly mislead others, than you must take the heat for
it.
--
Chris Nandor mailto:pudge@pobox.com http://pudge.net/
MacPerl: Power and Ease (ISBN 1881957322), http://www.ptf.com/macperl/
%PGPKey = ('B76E72AD', [1024, '0824090B CE73CA10 1FF77F13 8180B6B6'])
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 20:35:25 GMT
From: pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <pudge-2105981629440001@dynamic95.ply.adelphia.net>
In article <wsn4syja7ay.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>, robert havoc pennington
<hp@pobox.com> wrote:
# pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
# >
# > In article <_bS81.68$152.620589@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>, Barry
# > Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
# >
# > # The GPL doesn't force you to share with your friends, it allows it.
# >
# > What an odd thing to say. Since when does something like sharing your own
# > work with your friends need to be allowed? Does it allow me to cross the
# > street without my mommy, too?
#
# By default, copyright law prohibits sharing work. You must explicitly
# state that redistribution is allowed, or it is legally assumed to be
# prohibited.
Barry spoke from the perspective of the creator: it allows me to share
with my friends. That is a miscarriage of truth. I already have that
ability, regardless of any law or license. From the perspective of the
USER that may be true, but from the perspective of the CREATOR it is not.
I don't need any damned license to give something to other people. If you
think otherwise, you have been duped.
--
Chris Nandor mailto:pudge@pobox.com http://pudge.net/
MacPerl: Power and Ease (ISBN 1881957322), http://www.ptf.com/macperl/
%PGPKey = ('B76E72AD', [1024, '0824090B CE73CA10 1FF77F13 8180B6B6'])
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 16:40:50 -0500
From: fl_aggie@thepentagon.com (I R A Aggie)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <fl_aggie-2105981640500001@aggie.coaps.fsu.edu>
In article <p5d8d7biju.fsf@baynetworks.com>, psmith@baynetworks.com wrote:
+ %% news@russo.org (Chris Russo) writes:
+ cr> Why try to bend the English language to your group's wishes? Why
+ cr> not just use the language correctly and be understood?
+
+ The language _IS_ being used "correctly"; the term "free" _can_ mean
+ what RMS uses it for. The problem is that it can mean other things,
+ too.
In which case language is pointless and communication impossible. Death
of Usenet, Film at 11!
James - followups...
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN-local/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 20:21:57 GMT
From: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <6k22d5$anb$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
barr@cis.ohio-state.edu (Dave Barr) writes:
>In article <6k1leb$g0t$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>,
>Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> wrote:
>>By refusing to let others modify your work, you preserve the
>>artistic integrity of that work, but at the expense of making
>>the work less useful.
>
>That may be arguably true for documentation, but not for source code.
Nonsense, it's even *more* true for source code.
For example, if I couldn't modify Linux, I never would have been able
to turn down the ridiculously loud beep on my old PC, and thus
my poor housemates would have been woken up by beeps at odd hours!
For another example, if I couldn't modify the Boehm (et al) garbage
collector, so that I could port it to LinuxThreads, then we wouldn't be
able to make full use of our SMP hardware. The ability to modify
source code is undeniably useful.
>Perl is more useful for everyone because you can use it in a commercial
>product, unlike GNU software
I think you mean "proprietry", not "commercial". But anyway,
whether or not something can be used in a proprietry product
is an orthogonal issue to whether or not it can be modified
and redistributed. The Boehm collector can be used in
proprietry software, and that doesn't worry me at all.
But if it couldn't be modified, then I wouldn't use it.
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 16:53:04 -0400
From: psmith@baynetworks.com (Paul D. Smith)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <p5yavv9wi7.fsf@baynetworks.com>
%% prn@bsu.edu (Paul Neubauer) writes:
>> OK, so Chris and Tom are upset that when RMS writes "free" in his posts,
>> it doesn't mean what they think of as "free".
>>
>> But it appears to me that Tom's documents aren't free by _ANY_
>> commonly-accepted definition of "free" in the software industry.
>>
>> They aren't free as in "public domain".
>> They aren't free according to the BSD license.
>> They aren't free according to the GPL.
>> They aren't free according to the Artistic License.
>> They aren't free according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
>> They aren't free according to the Open Source Definition.
>>
>> It seems to me that _Tom_ is the one using the uncommon definition of
>> "free", not RMS.
pn> On the contrary, they ARE free in at least the following senses --
pn> the docs themselves are "free of charge" and the code examples
pn> contained therein are additionally free for any use (commercial or
pn> otherwise) as long as original authorship is not claimed by the
pn> user.
As I've posted numerous times to this thread already, the whole issue of
"using examples places your code under the GPL" is purely FUD.
Copyright law allows this. There is no problem with it (unless, I
suppose, the examples are pages long or something).
pn> Those meanings of "free" may not correspond exactly with any of
pn> the others cited by Paul Smith, but they are not chopped liver
pn> either.
We're not talking about chopped liver, though, we're talking about
software and software products, in which context (esp. among FSF and
perl users) "free" _does_ usually mean something more than, or even
completely different from, "free of charge". In fact, I can't recall
the last time I saw a "free software" product where that term meant
_exactly_ and only "free of charge".
We're talking about a comment made in the FSF's quarterly bulletin,
containing a list of "todo" items the FSF has, one of which was to
create "free documentation for perl". This is buried deep in the FSF's
own published bulletin which, when taken in context, is _steeped_ with
the GPL and the use of "free" in that environment. If they didn't fully
qualify every single reference to "free" in this document, well, it
doesn't seem like something worth making a federal case over. Everyone
reading that bulletin pretty much understands what the FSF means by
"free", even if they don't agree with it.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <psmith@baynetworks.com> Network Management Development
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions--Bay Networks takes no responsibility for them.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 20:45:31 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <wsnogwr8iac.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
>
> Who gives a rip if Tom knows what you mean? This discussion is read by
> many people who do not, and that is something that is your cross to bear.
> If you want to knowingly mislead others, than you must take the heat for
> it.
>
That may be true on comp.lang.perl.misc; I am reading
gnu.misc.discuss. If it makes you feel better, I won't cross-post
without explanation in the future. In gnu.misc.discuss I think we can
safely assume that people at least know that someone defines "free" in
the GNU sense.
Nonetheless, there is a world of difference between "mislead" in the
sense of using the term in the wrong context or with the wrong people,
and "knowingly mislead" in the sense of lie. I freely (hmm, what does
it mean there) admitted exactly what I meant in a followup post. I do
not see how that is the same as intentionally misleading anyone.
In the context of this thread, I think it's quite clear that the
meaning of "free" is in dispute, and I would expect readers to
understand what I meant by it or at least notice that they weren't
sure what I meant. If not they are pretty dense, and I would not hope
to communicate with them anyway.
There's no need to be rude, by the way. It's just not a big deal, and
it's safe to say that both sides are having a little trouble
understanding the other. That does not mean anyone is lying.
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 20:50:49 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community
Message-Id: <wsnn2cb8i1i.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
> In article <wsn4syja7ay.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>, robert havoc pennington
> <hp@pobox.com> wrote:
> # pudge@pobox.com (Chris Nandor) writes:
> # > In article <_bS81.68$152.620589@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>, Barry
> # > Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com> wrote:
> # > # The GPL doesn't force you to share with your friends, it allows it.
> # >
> # > What an odd thing to say. Since when does something like sharing your own
> # > work with your friends need to be allowed? Does it allow me to cross the
> # > street without my mommy, too?
> #
> # By default, copyright law prohibits sharing work. You must explicitly
> # state that redistribution is allowed, or it is legally assumed to be
> # prohibited.
>
> Barry spoke from the perspective of the creator: it allows me to share
> with my friends. That is a miscarriage of truth. I already have that
> ability, regardless of any law or license. From the perspective of the
> USER that may be true, but from the perspective of the CREATOR it is not.
> I don't need any damned license to give something to other people. If you
> think otherwise, you have been duped.
>
No. Read what he said - he said the GPL allows *you* to share with
your friends. No license has any effect on the creator, because as you
say the creator already has the ability.
If you get a copyrighted work you did not write, you must have a
license which allows you to share it if you want to (legally) share
it.
There is no reason to talk about the GPL or any license with respect
to the creator of a work, only with respect to the users.
Please, if you are going to be rude and accuse people of lying, try to
at least be right.
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 19:59:09 GMT
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <6k212d$aia$1@csnews.cs.colorado.edu>
[courtesy cc of this posting sent to cited author via email]
In comp.lang.perl.misc, robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com> writes:
:I don't see why you're flaming.
Because the prevaricative FUDworking has managed to convince people that
Perl's documentation isn't free, so they're building crippled distributions
of Perl. That is unfair to the users whom we're trying to help.
--tom
--
"If you substitute other kinds of intellectual property into the GNU
manifesto, it quickly becomes absurd." --Cal Keegan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 20:17:09 GMT
From: robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: GPL documentation == unspeakable evil
Message-Id: <wsnra1n8jlm.fsf@harper.uchicago.edu>
Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
>
> In comp.lang.perl.misc, robert havoc pennington <hp@pobox.com> writes:
> :I don't see why you're flaming.
>
> Because the prevaricative FUDworking has managed to convince people that
> Perl's documentation isn't free, so they're building crippled distributions
> of Perl. That is unfair to the users whom we're trying to help.
>
I think this is probably mostly the fault of your own license, which
is not very clear and seems to imply that commercial use is
prohibited. Certainly it does not allow distribution in all the cases
where perl can be distributed; for example, I can print a book
containing all the source for perl, but not containing your docs, if I
understand correctly. Why not add a line of clarification to your
docs, saying "you may distribute this in any case where you may
distribute perl"?
I do not see how you can blame the crippled distributions of perl on
some obscure comment on the GNU task list that's been on the list for
5 years.
If I wanted to know if I could distribute the perl docs, I would not
think to check the GNU task list. Come on.
Havoc Pennington ==== http://pobox.com/~hp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 20:36:07 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
To: "c." <cynthee@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Help needed - Will pay.
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980521132552.16724K-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On Thu, 21 May 1998, c. wrote:
> The same password will be going out to all of the members of this
> organization, and it is not likely that the password would ever change.
Thank you. You've made my day! But for even more fun, make the password
be the word "password". :-)
It sounds as if what they really want is a lot like Randal's eighteenth
Web Techniques column, which shows a way to make sure that all accesses
come through one starting page. It wouldn't be hard to modify that script
to require your one password to get past the starting page, I suspect.
http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/WebTechniques/
Hope this helps!
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 16:20:59 -0400
From: "John Zenyuh" <jzenyuh@mindspring.com>
Subject: Help! setting MODE for mkdir()
Message-Id: <6k226s$p12$1@camel25.mindspring.com>
I'm trying to create several directories at run-time
and I would like to establish the following permissions:
drwxrwxr-x dirname
I would appreciate any hints on setting the MODE
argument for the mkdir() function. Apparently the
octal sequence 0775 doesn't work like it does for
the cmd line 'chmod'. Running umask() from the
cmd line returns 022 -- new directories are automatically
created as drwxr-xr-x. (I don't know if this has any
impact.)
Are there any good resources on this issue? What
is the logic behind setting this value? Are there any
examples? Am I approaching the problem the wrong
way?
Thanks, in advance, for your help.
John Zenyuh
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 19:57:46 GMT
From: Tom Phoenix <rootbeer@teleport.com>
To: Ali <ampun@bigfoot.com>
Subject: Re: How to handle multiple selection
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980521125711.16724H-100000@user2.teleport.com>
On Thu, 21 May 1998, Ali wrote:
> open (FILE, ">>$datafile");
Even when your script is "just an example" (and perhaps especially in that
case!) you should _always_ check the return value after opening a file.
Thanks!
--
Tom Phoenix Perl Training and Hacking Esperanto
Randal Schwartz Case: http://www.rahul.net/jeffrey/ovs/
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 19:03:37 GMT
From: belg4mit@aol.com (Belg4mit)
Subject: Re: Idle thoughts...Can I make this leap year function more elegant/efficient?
Message-Id: <1998052119033700.PAA13190@ladder03.news.aol.com>
looks good to me
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 12:36:34 -0700
From: rokicki@cello.hpl.hp.com (Tom Rokicki)
Subject: Re: Idle thoughts...Can I make this leap year function more elegant/efficient?
Message-Id: <6k1vo2$d5u@cello.hpl.hp.com>
This is what I might use:
sub ly { my $y = shift ; !($y % 4) && $y % 100 || !($y % 400) }
-tom
------------------------------
Date: 21 May 1998 16:14:44 -0400
From: mjd@op.net (Mark-Jason Dominus)
Subject: Re: Idle thoughts...Can I make this leap year function more elegant/efficient?
Message-Id: <6k21vk$6k9$1@monet.op.net>
Keywords: cannabis equip irreparable revise
In article <356749eb.14708245@cnews.newsguy.com>,
Fritz Knack <fritz.knack@POPULUS.net> wrote:
>I compacted this one as much as *I* could,
There's plenty of benefit in leaving it readable to people instead of
trying to compact it. If you're trying to speed it up, maybe
memoization is a better option.
Still, if you want something cute, how about:
sub is_leap {
my $y = shift;
!($y % 400 xor $y % 100 xor $y % 4);
}
Maybe it bothers you that you alsways do three divisions. In that
case use
sub is_leap {
my $y = shift;
!($y%4 or ($y%100 xor $y%400));
}
Or maybe
!( $year%4 || !($year%100) && $year%400 )
I would never use ``!(X%Y)''. It's hard to understand.
I'd prefer (X%Y==0) instead:
!( $year%4 || ($year%100==0) && $year%400 )
Reversing the sense of the test might (or might not) make it more
understandable?
sub regular_year {
my $year = shift;
$year%4 || ($year%100==0) && $year%400
}
There's always the fighting-without-fighting approach:
%is_leap = map {($_ => 1)} (1201 .. 2399);
map {$is_leap{$_*100} = 0} (13..15, 17..19, 21..23);
sub is_leap {
$is_leap{$_[0]};
}
You know, this whole exercise seems like a waste of time. Who cares
if your leap year function is efficient? Is it a bottleneck?
Maybe this is a good opportunity to point out that the point of leap
years is to make the length of the calendar year more closely
approximate the length of the solar year, and that all intercalation
schemes are inaccurate. The Gregorian Calendar was devised when
people had been using the Julian system for long enough to notice the
inaccuracies. But there's a rule that we could adopt that is simpler
than the Gregorian system *and* more accurate. Under the Dominus
Calendar, a year is a leap year if and only if:
sub is_leap { $_[0] % 33 % 4 == 0 }
Now is the perfect time to institute this change. The switchover will
be easy: This rule coincides with the Gregorian rule until 2012, so we
have 13.5 years to change all our software. (2013 is a leap year in
the Dominus Calendar, so we'd have to have everything changed by
then.)
------------------------------
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 2667
**************************************
