[9915] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 3508 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Sat Aug 22 11:07:13 1998
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 98 08:01:35 -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 Sat, 22 Aug 1998 Volume: 8 Number: 3508
Today's topics:
Re: Why dont people read the FAQs lvirden@cas.org
Re: Why dont people read the FAQs (Gary L. Burnore)
Re: Why dont people read the FAQs (Gary L. Burnore)
Re: Why dont people read the FAQs (Gary L. Burnore)
Re: Why dont people read the FAQs (Gary L. Burnore)
Re: Why dont people read the FAQs (Gary L. Burnore)
Re: Why dont people read the FAQs (Gary L. Burnore)
Re: Why dont people read the FAQs (Gary L. Burnore)
Re: Why dont people read the FAQs (Gary L. Burnore)
Re: Why dont people read the FAQs (Gary L. Burnore)
Special: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 12 Mar 98 (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 22 Aug 1998 12:17:04 GMT
From: lvirden@cas.org
Subject: Re: Why dont people read the FAQs
Message-Id: <6rmcs0$ejr$1@srv38s4u.cas.org>
According to Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>:
:Larry Rosler (lr@hpl.hp.com) wrote:
:: In article <35db0173.1744952@newshost.pcug.org.au> on Tue, 18 Aug 1998
:: 23:13:38 GMT, Owen Cook <rcook@pcug.org.au> says...
:: > unless((length($CCNumber) == 16) && ($CCNumber=~ /\d{16}/))
:: unless ($CCNumber =~ /^\d{16}$/)
:If, as was discussed under a different topic a couple of weeks ago, you
:either know $CCNumber has no trailing newline, or don't mind one if it's
:there.
So length ignores the newline? The original code shows clearly the variable
is to match only if there are only the 16 digits of the credit card number
in the field. So the original would also fail with a training newline.
--
<URL:mailto:lvirden@cas.org> Quote: In heaven, there is no panic,
<*> O- <URL:http://www.teraform.com/%7Elvirden/> only planning.
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting
should be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 14:53:52 GMT
From: gburnore@databasix.com (Gary L. Burnore)
Subject: Re: Why dont people read the FAQs
Message-Id: <35efdb73.218311186@nntpd.databasix.com>
On 17 Aug 1998 15:29:28 -0500, in article <lnontkrb.fsf@mailhost.panix.com>,
Jonathan Feinberg <jdf@pobox.com> wrote:
>Richard Proctor <Richard@waveney.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> When someone asks a FAQ, yes tell them its in the documents once. It
>> does not need 6 people to say its in the FAQ
>
>Remember that the replies to a given post may not have propagated when
>someone posts their own reply. How can you know that 5 other people
>have already posted replies?
Hehehe. You could wait three weeks before answering. :)
--
I DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE EMAIL IN REGARD TO USENET POSTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
DOH! | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3 3 4 1 4 2 ]3^3 6 9 0 6 9 ][3
Special Sig for perl groups. | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 14:53:25 GMT
From: gburnore@databasix.com (Gary L. Burnore)
Subject: Re: Why dont people read the FAQs
Message-Id: <35eedab3.218119165@nntpd.databasix.com>
On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:23:08 +0100, in article
<ant171908b49Rr9i@waveney.demon.co.uk>, Richard Proctor
<Richard@waveney.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Why do we get so many questions here that are in the FAQ?
>
>These could be because:-
>
>0) People cant read (if so why are they writing)
>
>1) People have never heard of a FAQ (Unlikely)
>
>2) People are lazy (True - see Camel)
>
>3) The FAQs and Man pages are large, it is sometimes possible
>to miss somthing esoteric (This should be acceptable - I did it once)
>
>4) People are Impatient (True - see Camel)
>
>5) A lot of people, I suspect, post questions without ever having read
>clp.misc before (True)
>
>6) Perl is popular (Very True)
>
>7) A lot of postings come to clp.misc that are really about servers and cgi,
>this represents a major use of perl and results from people looking here
>because of the perl content, maybe there should be a clp.cgi?
DingDingDingDing. Now this makes sense. Great idea.
>
>8) I am not sure that Hubris comes into it though, with Hubris you solve
>the problem without the FAQ, or CPAN or clp.misc ...
>
>When someone asks a FAQ, yes tell them its in the documents once. It does not
>need 6 people to say its in the FAQ, it does not need a flame war.
Right. When someone _politely_ says: "The answer is ... and it's in the faq,
it works better than: "it's in the f*cking faq and you must be a lazy bum if
you didn't read it"
>
>Perhaps it requires one to step back from the war and ask WHY are there so
>many questions? Are there ways to reduce the number? Should perl print out
>"Read the FAQs" before it even looks at the script? (Supressable, by looking
>at the FAQs!)
Hehehe. Better yet, those who hate to see the same question asked several
times should ignore them and let others who have yet to become bored with them
answer.
>
>NB Abigails posts may be curt, but are generaly right and often amusing,
>and there is an awfull lot of perl to be learnt from her sigs.
So you'd find it amusing if someone called you a clueless moron for asking a
question that was covered somewhere in the faq but you just couldn't find it
and your boss wanted you to get the damn thing working today. Right.
--
I DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE EMAIL IN REGARD TO USENET POSTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
DOH! | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3 3 4 1 4 2 ]3^3 6 9 0 6 9 ][3
Special Sig for perl groups. | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 14:56:23 GMT
From: gburnore@databasix.com (Gary L. Burnore)
Subject: Re: Why dont people read the FAQs
Message-Id: <35f0dbae.218369869@nntpd.databasix.com>
On 18 Aug 1998 10:40:43 +0200, in article
<u7yasmof78.fsf@mch2pc21.tuwien.ac.at>, Alois Steindl
<asteindl@mch2pc21.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>Jonathan Feinberg <jdf@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Remember that the replies to a given post may not have propagated when
>> someone posts their own reply. How can you know that 5 other people
>> have already posted replies?
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Feinberg jdf@pobox.com Sunny Brooklyn, NY
>> http://pobox.com/~jdf/
>
>Hello,
>I don't think it's necessary at all to post such replies. Maybe the
>traffic in this newsgroup could be reduced considerably, if answers to
>FAQs were send by email: If a FAQ generates 5 responses with pointers
>to the FAQ, the traffic caused by these answers is maybe much larger
>than by the question itself.
Then there's no sense having a newsgroup. Make a listserve. One of the good
things about newsgroups is that you might get 5 different but correct answers
to a question. Another is that if someone suggests wrong, others are there to
help him and the one asking the question to learn. If 5 people each send an
email message, who's to know the answers are correct or if they're all very
different, that they're all still correct?
--
I DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE EMAIL IN REGARD TO USENET POSTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
DOH! | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3 3 4 1 4 2 ]3^3 6 9 0 6 9 ][3
Special Sig for perl groups. | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 14:53:52 GMT
From: gburnore@databasix.com (Gary L. Burnore)
Subject: Re: Why dont people read the FAQs
Message-Id: <6rmm7o$inh$2@elle.eunet.no>
On 17 Aug 1998 15:29:28 -0500, in article <lnontkrb.fsf@mailhost.panix.com>,
Jonathan Feinberg <jdf@pobox.com> wrote:
>Richard Proctor <Richard@waveney.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> When someone asks a FAQ, yes tell them its in the documents once. It
>> does not need 6 people to say its in the FAQ
>
>Remember that the replies to a given post may not have propagated when
>someone posts their own reply. How can you know that 5 other people
>have already posted replies?
Hehehe. You could wait three weeks before answering. :)
--
I DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE EMAIL IN REGARD TO USENET POSTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
DOH! | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3 3 4 1 4 2 ]3^3 6 9 0 6 9 ][3
Special Sig for perl groups. | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 14:53:25 GMT
From: gburnore@databasix.com (Gary L. Burnore)
Subject: Re: Why dont people read the FAQs
Message-Id: <6rmm7p$inh$3@elle.eunet.no>
On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:23:08 +0100, in article
<ant171908b49Rr9i@waveney.demon.co.uk>, Richard Proctor
<Richard@waveney.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Why do we get so many questions here that are in the FAQ?
>
>These could be because:-
>
>0) People cant read (if so why are they writing)
>
>1) People have never heard of a FAQ (Unlikely)
>
>2) People are lazy (True - see Camel)
>
>3) The FAQs and Man pages are large, it is sometimes possible
>to miss somthing esoteric (This should be acceptable - I did it once)
>
>4) People are Impatient (True - see Camel)
>
>5) A lot of people, I suspect, post questions without ever having read
>clp.misc before (True)
>
>6) Perl is popular (Very True)
>
>7) A lot of postings come to clp.misc that are really about servers and cgi,
>this represents a major use of perl and results from people looking here
>because of the perl content, maybe there should be a clp.cgi?
DingDingDingDing. Now this makes sense. Great idea.
>
>8) I am not sure that Hubris comes into it though, with Hubris you solve
>the problem without the FAQ, or CPAN or clp.misc ...
>
>When someone asks a FAQ, yes tell them its in the documents once. It does not
>need 6 people to say its in the FAQ, it does not need a flame war.
Right. When someone _politely_ says: "The answer is ... and it's in the faq,
it works better than: "it's in the f*cking faq and you must be a lazy bum if
you didn't read it"
>
>Perhaps it requires one to step back from the war and ask WHY are there so
>many questions? Are there ways to reduce the number? Should perl print out
>"Read the FAQs" before it even looks at the script? (Supressable, by looking
>at the FAQs!)
Hehehe. Better yet, those who hate to see the same question asked several
times should ignore them and let others who have yet to become bored with them
answer.
>
>NB Abigails posts may be curt, but are generaly right and often amusing,
>and there is an awfull lot of perl to be learnt from her sigs.
So you'd find it amusing if someone called you a clueless moron for asking a
question that was covered somewhere in the faq but you just couldn't find it
and your boss wanted you to get the damn thing working today. Right.
--
I DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE EMAIL IN REGARD TO USENET POSTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
DOH! | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3 3 4 1 4 2 ]3^3 6 9 0 6 9 ][3
Special Sig for perl groups. | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 14:56:23 GMT
From: gburnore@databasix.com (Gary L. Burnore)
Subject: Re: Why dont people read the FAQs
Message-Id: <6rmmbn$j0s$1@elle.eunet.no>
On 18 Aug 1998 10:40:43 +0200, in article
<u7yasmof78.fsf@mch2pc21.tuwien.ac.at>, Alois Steindl
<asteindl@mch2pc21.tuwien.ac.at> wrote:
>Jonathan Feinberg <jdf@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Remember that the replies to a given post may not have propagated when
>> someone posts their own reply. How can you know that 5 other people
>> have already posted replies?
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Feinberg jdf@pobox.com Sunny Brooklyn, NY
>> http://pobox.com/~jdf/
>
>Hello,
>I don't think it's necessary at all to post such replies. Maybe the
>traffic in this newsgroup could be reduced considerably, if answers to
>FAQs were send by email: If a FAQ generates 5 responses with pointers
>to the FAQ, the traffic caused by these answers is maybe much larger
>than by the question itself.
Then there's no sense having a newsgroup. Make a listserve. One of the good
things about newsgroups is that you might get 5 different but correct answers
to a question. Another is that if someone suggests wrong, others are there to
help him and the one asking the question to learn. If 5 people each send an
email message, who's to know the answers are correct or if they're all very
different, that they're all still correct?
--
I DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE EMAIL IN REGARD TO USENET POSTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
DOH! | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3 3 4 1 4 2 ]3^3 6 9 0 6 9 ][3
Special Sig for perl groups. | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 14:57:39 GMT
From: gburnore@databasix.com (Gary L. Burnore)
Subject: Re: Why dont people read the FAQs
Message-Id: <35f1dc37.218507726@nntpd.databasix.com>
On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 10:46:50 GMT, in article
<6rbm2q$mel$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, b_redeker@hotmail.com wrote:
>In article <ant171908b49Rr9i@waveney.demon.co.uk>,
> Richard Proctor <Richard@waveney.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Why do we get so many questions here that are in the FAQ?
>[snipped holy FAQ halleluja]
>>
>
>The FAQ's are by hackers for hackers,
>and while great for experienced Perl-writers and UNIX/Linux-adepts,
>others (newbies) may find the FAQ at times confusing
Confusing yes, but they DO have a lot of helpful info for new users.
SOMETIMES confusing.
--
I DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE EMAIL IN REGARD TO USENET POSTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
DOH! | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3 3 4 1 4 2 ]3^3 6 9 0 6 9 ][3
Special Sig for perl groups. | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 14:53:52 GMT
From: gburnore@databasix.com (Gary L. Burnore)
Subject: Re: Why dont people read the FAQs
Message-Id: <6rmmbq$j0s$4@elle.eunet.no>
On 17 Aug 1998 15:29:28 -0500, in article <lnontkrb.fsf@mailhost.panix.com>,
Jonathan Feinberg <jdf@pobox.com> wrote:
>Richard Proctor <Richard@waveney.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> When someone asks a FAQ, yes tell them its in the documents once. It
>> does not need 6 people to say its in the FAQ
>
>Remember that the replies to a given post may not have propagated when
>someone posts their own reply. How can you know that 5 other people
>have already posted replies?
Hehehe. You could wait three weeks before answering. :)
--
I DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE EMAIL IN REGARD TO USENET POSTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
DOH! | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3 3 4 1 4 2 ]3^3 6 9 0 6 9 ][3
Special Sig for perl groups. | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1998 14:53:25 GMT
From: gburnore@databasix.com (Gary L. Burnore)
Subject: Re: Why dont people read the FAQs
Message-Id: <6rmmbr$j0s$5@elle.eunet.no>
On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 20:23:08 +0100, in article
<ant171908b49Rr9i@waveney.demon.co.uk>, Richard Proctor
<Richard@waveney.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Why do we get so many questions here that are in the FAQ?
>
>These could be because:-
>
>0) People cant read (if so why are they writing)
>
>1) People have never heard of a FAQ (Unlikely)
>
>2) People are lazy (True - see Camel)
>
>3) The FAQs and Man pages are large, it is sometimes possible
>to miss somthing esoteric (This should be acceptable - I did it once)
>
>4) People are Impatient (True - see Camel)
>
>5) A lot of people, I suspect, post questions without ever having read
>clp.misc before (True)
>
>6) Perl is popular (Very True)
>
>7) A lot of postings come to clp.misc that are really about servers and cgi,
>this represents a major use of perl and results from people looking here
>because of the perl content, maybe there should be a clp.cgi?
DingDingDingDing. Now this makes sense. Great idea.
>
>8) I am not sure that Hubris comes into it though, with Hubris you solve
>the problem without the FAQ, or CPAN or clp.misc ...
>
>When someone asks a FAQ, yes tell them its in the documents once. It does not
>need 6 people to say its in the FAQ, it does not need a flame war.
Right. When someone _politely_ says: "The answer is ... and it's in the faq,
it works better than: "it's in the f*cking faq and you must be a lazy bum if
you didn't read it"
>
>Perhaps it requires one to step back from the war and ask WHY are there so
>many questions? Are there ways to reduce the number? Should perl print out
>"Read the FAQs" before it even looks at the script? (Supressable, by looking
>at the FAQs!)
Hehehe. Better yet, those who hate to see the same question asked several
times should ignore them and let others who have yet to become bored with them
answer.
>
>NB Abigails posts may be curt, but are generaly right and often amusing,
>and there is an awfull lot of perl to be learnt from her sigs.
So you'd find it amusing if someone called you a clueless moron for asking a
question that was covered somewhere in the faq but you just couldn't find it
and your boss wanted you to get the damn thing working today. Right.
--
I DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE EMAIL IN REGARD TO USENET POSTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
DOH! | ][3:]3^3:]33][:]3^3:]3]3^3:]3]][3
| ][3 3 4 1 4 2 ]3^3 6 9 0 6 9 ][3
Special Sig for perl groups. | Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: 12 Jul 98 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Special: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 12 Mar 98)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
Special notice: in a few days, the new group comp.lang.perl.moderated
should be formed. I would rather not support two different groups, and I
know of no other plans to create a digested moderated group. This leaves
me with two options: 1) keep on with this group 2) change to the
moderated one.
If you have opinions on this, send them to
perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
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 3508
**************************************
