[9430] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 3027 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Tue Jun 30 14:18:19 1998
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 98 11:01:08 -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 Tue, 30 Jun 1998 Volume: 8 Number: 3027
Today's topics:
Re: What a Crappy World <quednauf@nortel.co.uk>
Re: What a Crappy World (Craig Berry)
Re: What a Crappy World (John Stanley)
Re: What a Crappy World (Craig Berry)
Re: What a Crappy World (John Stanley)
Re: What a Crappy World <alf@orion.it>
Re: What a Crappy World (Craig Berry)
Re: What a Crappy World <ngouah@erols.com>
Re: What a Crappy World (Ronald J Kimball)
Re: What a Crappy World (John Stanley)
Re: What a Crappy World (John Stanley)
Re: What a Crappy World (Craig Berry)
Re: What a Crappy World (John Stanley)
Re: What a Crappy World <ljz@asfast.com>
Re: What a Crappy World birgitt@my-dejanews.com
what is taking so long? wweng@ei.org
Re: What module to download a gif? (Charlie Stross)
Who calls DESTROY? <benny@alben.com>
WIN32 equivalent to fork() <juko@bigfoot.XXXcom>
Re: Win32 OLE question <ecread@interaccess.com>
Re: Win32 OLE question (Jan Dubois)
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 10:03:10 +0100
From: "F.Quednau" <quednauf@nortel.co.uk>
Subject: Re: What a Crappy World
Message-Id: <3597584E.5E7976B0@nortel.co.uk>
Jonathan Feinberg wrote:
>
> Tom, it's *very* hard to tell whether you're
>
> 1) Cracking wise randomly
>
> 2) Referring to some actual business venture of his
> with which you take issue and trying to "out" him.
>
> Care to let us in? Is this some grand example of the harsh, dry humor
> that you seem to revel in? Is this some zany bid to get plonked?
Maybe TC is an alien. Yes, that's right. I am not sure if it's Mars, or the
mighty sun people. He can see the whole quantum state of the clpm group, and
although you don't see it, with his thrown in remarks, he initiates a very
complicated quantum state excitement that in a few years time will lead to
certain and irreversible madness in 90 % of the clpm people. It has already
started on you, hasn't it? And with me as well, I have this silly smirk on my
face when I read TC's responses! Argh, I can't change it anymore (Of course I
can't, time seems to be meanigless in that quantum state!)
--
____________________________________________________________
Frank Quednau
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/~me51fq
________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jun 1998 20:20:36 GMT
From: cberry@cinenet.net (Craig Berry)
Subject: Re: What a Crappy World
Message-Id: <6n8suk$8sm$1@marina.cinenet.net>
Jean-Louis Leroy (jll@skynet.be) wrote:
: I wonder why this NG is so hellish. Is it merely an effect of having so
: many people in a tiny crowded room? Is it seeing the same questions
: over and over again?
The latter, particularly given the infuriating fact that those posting the
same questions over and over have the answers they need *already on their
hard drives*. There's something about that which drives me over the edge
into irrational fury at times, and apparently I'm not alone in this
weakness.
Also, I wouldn't describe clpm as "hellish," relative to some other
net.places I frequent. This may simply be a function of the sorts of
places I frequent, however. :)
: Was the average CompuServe of these days user better behaved than his
: current internet counterpart?
Yes, if this was several years ago. A hiker friend of mine taught me the
Backcountry Axiom: For each mile you walk away from places reachable by
car, the quantity of people drops tenfold, and the quality increases
tenfold. Much the same once applied to Usenet; getting online was hard to
do, and those who could manage it tended to be well-educated, self-reliant
people. The Usenet of those days was like a nice camping spot ten miles
from the nearest road. Anyone you met there had worked hard to be there,
and was committed to maintaining the environment found there. And, quite
frankly, being so hard to reach meant not many people were there in the
first place. All of these factors were conducive to enlightened, polite
discussion among peers.
The modern Usenet is more like the Yosemite Valley on Labor Day weekend.
The environment is still there, but it is constantly diminished by the
noisy crowds of newcomers who find it trivial to get there by car. Radios
blare, car exhaust fills the air, animals are frightened into hiding.
Old-timers who wish to appreciate nature in the backcountry way can't do
so anymore. They are left with two choices:
* Try to reduce the crowding and inappropriate behavior where they are
now, through education, persuasion, or intimidation. This has been
the subject of the most recent clpm flamewar.
* Move further into the backcountry, and put up gates keeping those not
sharing the common ethos out. This is the gist of the moderated-group
proposal currently nearing the end of its voting period.
The key realization is that in the second scenario, anyone who adopts the
common ethos will happily be admitted into the backcountry. Those
carrying blaring radios or driving Winnebagos will be turned away.
: Now if Perl is such a fun language, why are you people so unhappy -
: experts and beginners alike?
Because the fun parts -- which *are* still discussed here, and which we
all seem to enjoy -- are in danger of being drowned out by the newbie
noise level. To continue my analogy, it is hard to contemplate the
grandeur of Half Dome while breathing diesel exhaust and listening to
three boom boxes playing different music.
: As soon as the moderated NG shows up, I'll tune to it. I wonder how
: it'll turn out...
Better, I hope. At least it will be an alternative; experiments are
always worthwhile, for even 'failures' tell us what doesn't work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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: 29 Jun 1998 22:09:10 GMT
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: What a Crappy World
Message-Id: <6n93a6$c42$1@news.NERO.NET>
In article <6n8suk$8sm$1@marina.cinenet.net>,
Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> wrote:
>The latter, particularly given the infuriating fact that those posting the
>same questions over and over have the answers they need *already on their
>hard drives*.
I rarely see the same person posting the same question over and over
again. There may be many people who post the same question once, but
they are not in collusion in doing so; there is no conspiracy. It's no
different than 83 people all stopping at the info booth in a mall asking
for directions to the toilet. They didn't all get together ahead of time
and assign which question to ask and what time they would appear at the
booth.
>Better, I hope. At least it will be an alternative; experiments are
>always worthwhile, for even 'failures' tell us what doesn't work.
Unfortunately, if this experiment fails we will be stuck with it for a
very long time. It will not only be a failure that attracts people who
don't know it failed, it will stand in the way of creating a better
place.
Yes, there are some experiments that are not worthwhile, at least, some
places to conduct experiments that make them not worthwhile. This
knowledge already exists in this group. When someone wanted to talk
about creating a perl group (for CGI issues, I think it was), he was
told to go create the group in alt and see if it worked. If it did, he
could always create a big 8 group later. Funny how this "try it in alt"
step didn't apply to the people who want a moderated group.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jun 1998 22:41:48 GMT
From: cberry@cinenet.net (Craig Berry)
Subject: Re: What a Crappy World
Message-Id: <6n957c$ipc$2@marina.cinenet.net>
John Stanley (stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU) wrote:
: In article <6n8suk$8sm$1@marina.cinenet.net>,
: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> wrote:
: >The latter, particularly given the infuriating fact that those posting the
: >same questions over and over have the answers they need *already on their
: >hard drives*.
:
: I rarely see the same person posting the same question over and over
: again. There may be many people who post the same question once, but
: they are not in collusion in doing so; there is no conspiracy.
I'm not suggesting the existence of a conspiracy, though I'll admit that
my and others' rhetoric can all too often be read that way. Rather, I'm
suggesting that it is annoying that *anyone*, *even once*, would ask a
question for which many people have gone to great effort to make sure that
that person has an answer on their hard drive. To borrow your next
analogy...
: It's no
: different than 83 people all stopping at the info booth in a mall asking
: for directions to the toilet. They didn't all get together ahead of time
: and assign which question to ask and what time they would appear at the
: booth.
...if the booth were located beneath a neon arrow labeled "THIS WAY TO THE
TOILET," I think the person in the booth might justifiably get annoyed.
Or, to stretch the analogy past the absurdity point, if each of them
walked up *carrying* a toilet. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
--*-- Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
| Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/
"Every man and every woman is a star."
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jun 1998 23:31:35 GMT
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: What a Crappy World
Message-Id: <6n984n$ecl$1@news.NERO.NET>
In article <6n957c$ipc$2@marina.cinenet.net>,
Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> wrote:
>Rather, I'm
>suggesting that it is annoying that *anyone*, *even once*, would ask a
>question for which many people have gone to great effort to make sure that
>that person has an answer on their hard drive. To borrow your next
>analogy...
There are two issues here. 1) Being annoyed. 2) Flaming. I would love
people to tell me that (1) makes (2) acceptable, but I don't think most
people believe that. If they really do think that way, then I am off
the hook for everything I have ever posted. Thanks.
>...if the booth were located beneath a neon arrow labeled "THIS WAY TO THE
>TOILET," I think the person in the booth might justifiably get annoyed.
Then he shouldn't be in the booth. And can he be justifiably annoyed
when 83 people ask "where's the payphone"?
>Or, to stretch the analogy past the absurdity point, if each of them
>walked up *carrying* a toilet. :)
Yes, that is past absurdity. You are now attributing their actions to
malice and not ignorance.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:10:16 +0200
From: Alessandro Forghieri <alf@orion.it>
Subject: Re: What a Crappy World
Message-Id: <359205E8.853EA857@orion.it>
Greetings.
Olga wrote:
>
> Some of these people have tried using it.
> Some of the FAQ available does not work out because of the different
[...]
Uranus will devour some of his children. In c.l.p.m at least, they
get the thrill of being devoured by the real thing, not by some
brandless drive-by flamer.
On the other hand,in my newby days, I have posted several questions on
clpm, and was always answer politely, if sometimes tersely, by the NG in
general and Tom Christiansen in particular.
In general, though, I posted to the group after having familiarized with
it and having read the relevant documentation. When the docs did not
help, I took the time to state why in the post.
This is not the rule in many of the posts we witness every day.
While I do sometimes object to Tom's sharp tongued style, posts like:
"Wanna process form.
Wanna use perl.
Please email.
Thanx"
do tax my (and anybody's) patience.
Sometimes a honest-to-god, good willed newby gets flamed by 'friendly
fire'. That's too bad, but it should take it as a rite of passage,
rather than take offense.
Just my two liras (much less than two cents, these days).
Cheers,
Alessandro Forghieri
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jun 1998 23:58:11 GMT
From: cberry@cinenet.net (Craig Berry)
Subject: Re: What a Crappy World
Message-Id: <6n99mj$ndk$1@marina.cinenet.net>
John Stanley (stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU) wrote:
: >Or, to stretch the analogy past the absurdity point, if each of them
: >walked up *carrying* a toilet. :)
:
: Yes, that is past absurdity. You are now attributing their actions to
: malice and not ignorance.
And yet, each and every person who asks a faq on clpm is indeed 'carrying'
the very answer they seek, inches away from their fingers as they type the
question. I suppose that's the issue this all boils down to: Is
downloading a software product (Perl), installing it, failing to notice
the prominently advertised documentation you just installed, and therefore
asking a faq on clpm malice, or ignorance? I'd put it in the legal
category of 'criminal negligence' -- any reasonably thoughtful and
competent person is expected to avoid such a mistake, and the legal system
may punish those who do not do so. To that extent, it is indeed regarded
as 'malice'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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, 29 Jun 1998 21:26:06 -0400
From: Ngouah A Nguiamba <ngouah@erols.com>
Subject: Re: What a Crappy World
Message-Id: <35983EAE.1468@erols.com>
Craig Berry wrote:
>
> Jean-Louis Leroy (jll@skynet.be) wrote:
> : I wonder why this NG is so hellish.
I don't, because it isn't.
[snipped too much stuff, complaints from non-newbies]
> The modern Usenet is more like the Yosemite Valley on Labor Day weekend.
> The environment is still there, but it is constantly diminished by the
> noisy crowds of newcomers who find it trivial to get there by car.
And old-timers who can't stop whining.
> This is the gist of the moderated-group
> proposal currently nearing the end of its voting period.
Guess what - newbies have heard this already - surprise, surprise
>
> : Now if Perl is such a fun language, why are you people so unhappy -
> : experts and beginners alike?
They aren't, you think unhappy experts would elaborate two pages on
this ... if they were.
> All the fun parts ...[snip]
> all seem to enjoy -- are in danger of being drowned out by the newbie
> noise level.
Are you a newbie ?
> To continue my analogy,
Please don't.
Ngouah Nguiamba
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 23:30:40 -0400
From: rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu (Ronald J Kimball)
Subject: Re: What a Crappy World
Message-Id: <1dberi1.1xlxs34jb5l2tN@bay2-15.quincy.ziplink.net>
John Stanley <stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU> wrote:
> I rarely see the same person posting the same question over and over
> again. There may be many people who post the same question once, but
> they are not in collusion in doing so; there is no conspiracy. It's no
> different than 83 people all stopping at the info booth in a mall asking
> for directions to the toilet. They didn't all get together ahead of time
> and assign which question to ask and what time they would appear at the
> booth.
Perl is not a mall, clpm is not an info booth, and people wanting to go
to the toilet should print out the Perl documentation so they can read
it while they're on the can.
I would say it's more like 83 people going to the Perl conference,
standing up in the middle of the town meeting, and asking for directions
to the bathroom. :-)
--
_ / ' _ / - 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: 30 Jun 1998 06:12:21 GMT
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: What a Crappy World
Message-Id: <6n9vk5$lrv$1@news.NERO.NET>
In article <6n99mj$ndk$1@marina.cinenet.net>,
Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> wrote:
>John Stanley (stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU) wrote:
>: >Or, to stretch the analogy past the absurdity point, if each of them
>: >walked up *carrying* a toilet. :)
>:
>: Yes, that is past absurdity. You are now attributing their actions to
>: malice and not ignorance.
>
>And yet, each and every person who asks a faq on clpm is indeed 'carrying'
>the very answer they seek, inches away from their fingers as they type the
>question.
1. That is not necessarily true.
2. Even if it is true, asking the question is still not necessarily due
to malice.
>I suppose that's the issue this all boils down to: Is
>downloading a software product (Perl), installing it, failing to notice
>the prominently advertised documentation you just installed, and therefore
>asking a faq on clpm malice, or ignorance?
Now you are assuming that every person who uses perl has downloaded and
installed it. Not every perl user is an admin.
>I'd put it in the legal
>category of 'criminal negligence' -- any reasonably thoughtful and
>competent person is expected to avoid such a mistake,
Expected by whom? Someone who already knows the answer?
>and the legal system
>may punish those who do not do so. To that extent, it is indeed regarded
>as 'malice'.
Fine. You are free to consider it whatever you wish. May you be happy in
your assumption that everyone is doing it just to piss you off.
------------------------------
Date: 30 Jun 1998 06:15:55 GMT
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: What a Crappy World
Message-Id: <6n9vqr$lt2$1@news.NERO.NET>
In article <1dberi1.1xlxs34jb5l2tN@bay2-15.quincy.ziplink.net>,
Ronald J Kimball <rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>Perl is not a mall, clpm is not an info booth, and people wanting to go
>to the toilet should print out the Perl documentation so they can read
>it while they're on the can.
How suave. The analogy I used isn't an identity. That's why it's called
an analogy.
But yes, in the analogy, clpm is an info booth. When people say that
"perl has no support" and they get told "what do you think the newsgroup
is, dummy?", yes, clpm is an "info booth".
And the point still stands: claim all you want the people are asking
over and over again the same questions, but be ready to provide more
evidence than the occasional netscape multi-poster.
------------------------------
Date: 30 Jun 1998 07:21:32 GMT
From: cberry@cinenet.net (Craig Berry)
Subject: Re: What a Crappy World
Message-Id: <6na3ls$ln0$1@marina.cinenet.net>
John Stanley (stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU) wrote:
: In article <6n99mj$ndk$1@marina.cinenet.net>,
: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> wrote:
: >And yet, each and every person who asks a faq on clpm is indeed 'carrying'
: >the very answer they seek, inches away from their fingers as they type the
: >question.
:
: 1. That is not necessarily true.
Replacing my physical-proximity image with "freely available to them," yes
it is. Even if they are afflicted by a broken installation, the docs and
faqs are also on the Web. A day of lurking on clpm or five minutes of
exploring the intuitively-named www.perl.com would reveal this.
: 2. Even if it is true, asking the question is still not necessarily due
: to malice.
Willfull negligence is close enough to malice that I see little use for a
distinction between them in this case.
: >I suppose that's the issue this all boils down to: Is
: >downloading a software product (Perl), installing it, failing to notice
: >the prominently advertised documentation you just installed, and therefore
: >asking a faq on clpm malice, or ignorance?
:
: Now you are assuming that every person who uses perl has downloaded and
: installed it. Not every perl user is an admin.
But every perl user can either install it, grab the installation tarfile
and yank out just the docs, or browse them on the Web. Inability to do at
least one of these seems unlikely in anyone legitimately claiming to be a
'programmer'.
: >I'd put it in the legal
: >category of 'criminal negligence' -- any reasonably thoughtful and
: >competent person is expected to avoid such a mistake,
:
: Expected by whom? Someone who already knows the answer?
The law posits a 'reasonably prudent person' against whom decisions by
real people are measured. Reasonably prudent people can and will find the
Perl docs, and can and will refrain from asking faqs on clpm.
: >and the legal system
: >may punish those who do not do so. To that extent, it is indeed regarded
: >as 'malice'.
:
: Fine. You are free to consider it whatever you wish. May you be happy in
: your assumption that everyone is doing it just to piss you off.
No, they're doing it because they are inconsiderate and uncivilized, wrt
the civilization that is (was?) Usenet. I don't think it's personal; it
simply matters to me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| 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: 30 Jun 1998 08:12:41 GMT
From: stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: What a Crappy World
Message-Id: <6na6lp$o6b$1@news.NERO.NET>
In article <6na3ls$ln0$1@marina.cinenet.net>,
Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> wrote:
>John Stanley (stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU) wrote:
>: 1. That is not necessarily true.
>
>Replacing my physical-proximity image with "freely available to them," yes
>it is.
Hmm, interesting tactic. Change what you said and then argue that you
were right in the first place.
>Even if they are afflicted by a broken installation, the docs and
>faqs are also on the Web. A day of lurking on clpm or five minutes of
>exploring the intuitively-named www.perl.com would reveal this.
News access does not imply web access. It still is not necessarily true
that the docs are within inches of their fingers. And 'freely available'
does not mean "readily available".
>: 2. Even if it is true, asking the question is still not necessarily due
>: to malice.
>
>Willfull negligence is close enough to malice that I see little use for a
>distinction between them in this case.
Yes, it is convenient to ignore any distinction, and to assume that
ignorance is "willfull negligence", but it doesn't lead one closer to
the truth.
>: Now you are assuming that every person who uses perl has downloaded and
>: installed it. Not every perl user is an admin.
>
>But every perl user can either install it, grab the installation tarfile
>and yank out just the docs, or browse them on the Web.
You keep making these grandious statements about what everyone else is
able to do. I wouldn't call 'installing it' to be "inches from their
fingers", nor is downloading the installation tarfile "inches", and like
we already know, news access does not imply web access.
>Inability to do at
>least one of these seems unlikely in anyone legitimately claiming to be a
>'programmer'.
I missed the part of the group charter that said only "legitimate
programmers" were allowed.
>: Expected by whom? Someone who already knows the answer?
>
>The law
Is irrelevant because it is not against the law to post a question to
clpm.
>: Fine. You are free to consider it whatever you wish. May you be happy in
>: your assumption that everyone is doing it just to piss you off.
>
>No, they're doing it because they are inconsiderate and uncivilized, wrt
>the civilization that is (was?) Usenet.
Yes, more statements of fact as to why someone acts ignorantly that
ignore simple ignorance.
>I don't think it's personal; it simply matters to me.
There must be some reason all these people are acting maliciously. I
can't think of anything other than a knowledge that is pisses people
like you off. I doubt that it is an effort at costing news systems money.
They could be much more effective by posting binaries in binary groups,
or by posting rants to alt.flame or talk.*. What reason do YOU think
these people have for being malicious?
------------------------------
Date: 30 Jun 1998 08:12:58 -0400
From: Lloyd Zusman <ljz@asfast.com>
Subject: Re: What a Crappy World
Message-Id: <ltogvbyto5.fsf@asfast.com>
cberry@cinenet.net (Craig Berry) writes:
> John Stanley (stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU) wrote:
> : In article <6n99mj$ndk$1@marina.cinenet.net>,
> : Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> wrote:
> : >And yet, each and every person who asks a faq on clpm is indeed 'carrying'
> : >the very answer they seek, inches away from their fingers as they type the
> : >question.
> :
> : [ ... ]
>
> [ ... ]
>
> : 2. Even if it is true, asking the question is still not necessarily due
> : to malice.
>
> Willfull negligence is close enough to malice that I see little use for a
> distinction between them in this case.
Well, perhaps you also don't make a distinction between *willful*
negligence and negligence born of *ignorance*. After all, in many
cases in our society, "ignorance of the law is no excuse", and perhaps
you're applying this criterion here, as well.
If you truly don't make a distinction here between these two cases,
then the rest of my post will not be relevant to you.
However, if you *do* make such a distinction, then I ask you to
consider the possibility that many of the people who pose a
frequently-asked-question here on c.l.p.m might be totally ignorant
that they are "'carrying' the very answer they seek".
In both cases ("willful negligence" and "negligence born of
ignorance") it's perfectly reasonable that the person be told that the
answers are readily available to him or her. However, in the second
case (the "ignorance" case), I believe that the person should be
steered to the docs and FAQ's with patience and polite consideration.
[ Note that nowhere am I saying that this person should necessarily
be given the answer(s) to the question(s) being posed here in
c.l.p.m. ]
And I also believe that if it's impossible, due to insufficient data,
to determine whether the negligence is willful or ignorant, that it is
better to err on the side of patience, politeness, and consideration.
And even in the first case (the "willful" case), I am opposed to those
few who deal with the person using insults.
> [ ... ]
>
> But every perl user can either install it, grab the installation tarfile
> and yank out just the docs, or browse them on the Web. Inability to do at
> least one of these seems unlikely in anyone legitimately claiming to be a
> 'programmer'.
Well, in the "ignorance" case I discussed above, we could very well
have people who are fully capable of programming or of learning to
program well, but who aren't presently aware of netiquette or the
readily accessible docs and FAQ's.
> : >I'd put it in the legal
> : >category of 'criminal negligence' -- any reasonably thoughtful and
> : >competent person is expected to avoid such a mistake,
> :
> : Expected by whom? Someone who already knows the answer?
>
> The law posits a 'reasonably prudent person' against whom decisions by
> real people are measured. Reasonably prudent people can and will find the
> Perl docs, and can and will refrain from asking faqs on clpm.
You're right that the law posits a 'reasonably prudent person' in many
cases. And it's perfectly justifiable to steer all reasonably
prudent people who come here to the docs and FAQ's.
It's also the case that those who are adults in society are expected
to actually *behave* as adults, and it's generally considered to be
non-adult, childish behavior to engage in gratuitously insulting
behavior. The concept of a posited "reasonably prudent person"
against whom all are measured applies in this case, also. Reasonably
prudent people can easily choose to refrain from using childish
insults when steering others towards the docs and FAQ's.
> [ ... ]
> :
> : Fine. You are free to consider it whatever you wish. May you be happy in
> : your assumption that everyone is doing it just to piss you off.
>
> No, they're doing it because they are inconsiderate and uncivilized, wrt
> the civilization that is (was?) Usenet. I don't think it's personal; it
> simply matters to me.
It's clear that you truly believe that those who come here in this
manner with frequently asked questions are inconsiderate and
uncivilized w/r/t usenet. But keep in mind that it's equally
inconsiderate and uncivilized (w/r/t the larger, human society in
which we all live) to engage in gratuitous insulting behavior.
In other words, those few who do so here are just as uncivilized as
those they are attempting to criticize.
--
Lloyd Zusman ljz@asfast.com
perl -e '$n=170;for($d=2;($d*$d)<=$n;$d+=(1+($d%2))){for($t=0;($n%$d)==0;
$t++){$n=int($n/$d);}while($t-->0){push(@r,$d);}}if($n>1){push(@r,$n);}
$x=0;map{$x+=(($_>0)?(1<<log($_-0.5)/log(2.0)+1):1)}@r;print"$x\n"'
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 15:49:18 GMT
From: birgitt@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: What a Crappy World
Message-Id: <6nb1du$36d$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
In article <6na3ls$ln0$1@marina.cinenet.net>,
cberry@cinenet.net (Craig Berry) wrote:
>
> John Stanley (stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU) wrote:
> : In article <6n99mj$ndk$1@marina.cinenet.net>,
> : Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Willfull negligence is close enough to malice that I see little use for a
> distinction between them in this case.
>
> : >I suppose that's the issue this all boils down to: Is
> : >downloading a software product (Perl), installing it, failing to notice
> : >the prominently advertised documentation you just installed, and therefore
> : >asking a faq on clpm malice, or ignorance?
> :
> : Now you are assuming that every person who uses perl has downloaded and
> : installed it. Not every perl user is an admin.
[snip]
> : >I'd put it in the legal
> : >category of 'criminal negligence' -- any reasonably thoughtful and
> : >competent person is expected to avoid such a mistake,
[snip]
> : Fine. You are free to consider it whatever you wish. May you be happy in
> : your assumption that everyone is doing it just to piss you off.
>
> No, they're doing it because they are inconsiderate and uncivilized, wrt
> the civilization that is (was?) Usenet. I don't think it's personal; it
> simply matters to me.
However thorough (this justifyable or not) analysis may be, both of you miss
the more important point - a working solution.
IMHO, wouldn't be the first time the 'criminal justice system' failed, BTW.
;-)
Birgitt Funk
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jun 1998 22:15:40 GMT
From: wweng@ei.org
Subject: what is taking so long?
Message-Id: <6n93mc$4p9$1@eipipeline.ei.org>
I used LWP::Simple to "get" a URL "http://www.sandelman.ocunix.on.ca/dams/archive.html".
It doens't take long for me to load it on netscape while it takes like half 10 minutes for me to "get" it
using perl.
Code:
$url = "http://www.sandelman.ocunix.on.ca/dams/archive.html";
$content = get($url);
and when I debugged through, it showed me that the program stalled at the "get($url)" part.
Can anyone tell me what's wrong with the program or is there other better library that i can use to grab
webpages using perl?
thanks in advance
wei
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 13:08:07 GMT
From: charlie@antipope.org (Charlie Stross)
Subject: Re: What module to download a gif?
Message-Id: <slrn6pf4di.rfn.charlie@cs.ed.datacash.com>
In the name of Kibo the Compassionate, the Merciful,
on Sat, 27 Jun 1998 01:20:36 GMT,root.noharvest.\@not_even\here.com
the supplicant <root.noharvest.\@not_even\here.com> implored:
>>Even when your script is "just an example" (and perhaps especially in that
>>case!) you should _always_ check the return value after opening a file.
>>Thanks!
>
>Far be it from me to interfere with your task as perl nazi, but I
>totally disagree.
>
>I never use die and I never check the return value. The reason I
>don't is because I mostly use perl for web applications (cgi), and
>because my first and primary purpose in writing CGIs is to produce
>output to the user.
Then why not do this?
if (open(FOO, ">myfile") == 0) {
abort("myfile") and return;
} else {
# proceed as normal
return;
}
Somewhere else in your script, define a sub abort() to do something
meaningful to the user (like print a box containing the message "picture
not obtainable, please wait").
>You cannot say that "you should _always_" do anything that is merely a
>matter of programming form.
Er, depends what.
Tom is saying you should always _check_ the returned value. He didn't
say you should always call die() if the open() failed!
The hallmark of a good program is that it should do something sensible
when presented with corrupt or missing inputs, not pretend everything
is alright or shoot itself in the head.
-- Charlie
"Software is like sex... it's better when it's free."
-- Linus Torvalds
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 18:24:31 -0400
From: "me" <benny@alben.com>
Subject: Who calls DESTROY?
Message-Id: <6n93ot$rt3$1@news.spacelab.net>
I added a C++ class using the XS stuff and everithing works fine except that
my destructor is called twice.
I have it defined as
void
MyClass::DESTROY()
CODE:
printf("I am being called...\n");
----------------------
My perl code looks like:
use MyClass;
$m = new MyClass();
$m->sometuff(......)
print "bye\n";
# end of file
When I run it, DESTROY is called twice (after bye is printed).
WHO IS CALLING IT!
Any ideas?
Thanks
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 17:29:49 +0200
From: juergen kochner <juko@bigfoot.XXXcom>
Subject: WIN32 equivalent to fork()
Message-Id: <3599046D.63C9E9E3@bigfoot.XXXcom>
Hi forks ups folks,
Does someone know if there is a workaround for that missing fork()
functionallity under win32. Is there any other possibility to split
processes??
Thanks for your help,
Juergen....;-)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998 14:53:03 -0500
From: "Edward C. Read" <ecread@interaccess.com>
Subject: Re: Win32 OLE question
Message-Id: <35969F1F.9AE9D280@interaccess.com>
OK... I found what was wrong, and I include a small program that may
save someone else some time. It creates a new Word document, writes
2 paragraphs to it, extracts the text of the paragraphs (here, individual
sentences),
and saves the document.
-Ned
----------------------------------------
use OLE;
@line = (
"Hello, doc?",
"Goodbye, doc.",
);
$wdapp = CreateObject OLE "Word.Application.8" ||
die "CreateObject: $!";
$wdapp->{Visible} = 1; # Watch what happens
$doc = $wdapp->Documents->Add(); # Create a new document
$rng = $doc->{Content};
$rng->{Text} = $line[0];
for ($i=1; $i <= $#line; $i++) {
$rng->InsertParagraphAfter();
$rng->InsertAfter($line[$i]);
}
$paraCount = $doc->Paragraphs->Count();
print "paraCount=$paraCount\n";
print "Paragraphs:\n";
for ($i=1; $i <= $paraCount; $i++) {
print "$i: ", $doc->Paragraphs($i)->Range->{Text};
}
$doc->SaveAs("c:/Perl/src/hello.doc");
$doc->Close();
$wdapp->Quit();
---------------------------------
Edward C. Read wrote:
> I wrote a script that creates a small Microsoft Word document from Perl,
>
> with code like:
>
> use OLE;
>
> $wdapp = CreateObject OLE "Word.Application.8" || die ...
> $doc = $wdapp->Documents->Add();
> ...
>
> I have so far been unable to access individual paragraphs that I've
> successfully inserted. I can get a count of them via:
>
> $paraCount = $doc->Paragraphs->Count;
>
> but how do I retrieve the text of individual paragraphs in the
> Paragraphs collection object? Thanks for suggestions.
>
> -Ned
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 22:05:45 +0200
From: jan.dubois@ibm.net (Jan Dubois)
Subject: Re: Win32 OLE question
Message-Id: <359af043.9513149@news2.ibm.net>
[mailed & posted]
"Edward C. Read" <ecread@interaccess.com> wrote:
>I wrote a script that creates a small Microsoft Word document from Perl,
>
>with code like:
>
> use OLE;
>
> $wdapp = CreateObject OLE "Word.Application.8" || die ...
> $doc = $wdapp->Documents->Add();
> ...
>
>I have so far been unable to access individual paragraphs that I've
>successfully inserted. I can get a count of them via:
>
> $paraCount = $doc->Paragraphs->Count;
>
>but how do I retrieve the text of individual paragraphs in the
>Paragraphs collection object? Thanks for suggestions.
You can just index them:
for ($index = 1 ; $index <= $doc->Paragraphs->Count ; ++$index) {
my $para = $doc->Paragraphs($index);
# whatever you want to do with each paragraph
}
If you are using standard Perl and Win32::OLE from libwin32 you can also
write:
use Win32::OLE qw(in);
# ...
foreach my $para (in $doc->Paragraphs) {
# whatever you want to do with each paragraph
}
-Jan
------------------------------
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 3027
**************************************
