FAQ

[Python] perl bug File::Basename and Perl's nature

Xah Lee
Jan 25, 2004 at 5:31 am
Just bumped into another irresponsibility in perl.

the crime in question this time is the module File::Basename.

Reproduction:

1. create a directory containing a file of this name: "cdrom.html".
2. "use File::Basename;", with the line:
($name,$path,$suffix) = fileparse($File::Find::name, ('.html',
'.m'));
3. Notice that your cdrom.html will be parsed into "cdr" with suffix
"om.html".

expletive Perl and Perl slinging morons.

Now, if you peruse the "documentation" of "perldoc File::Basename",
you'll see that it shouldn't be so. AND, the writting as usuall is
fantastic incompetent. To illustrate, i quote:

--begin quote

fileparse

The fileparse() routine divides a file
specification into three parts: a leading path, a
file name, and a suffix. The path contains
everything up to and including the last directory
separator in the input file specification. The
remainder of the input file specification is then
divided into name and suffix based on the
optional patterns you specify in
@suffixlist. Each element of this list can be a
qr-quoted pattern (or a string which is
interpreted as a regular expression), and is
matched against the end of name. If this
succeeds, the matching portion of name is removed
and prepended to suffix. By proper use of
@suffixlist, you can remove file types or
versions for examination.

--end quote

Note the last sentence: "By proper use of @suffixlist, you can remove
file types or versions for examination." Now, this is in sync with the
usual verbiages of unix man pages, of mentioning irrevalent things.
Why the fuck do i need to know what is version, or examination what??
Not every morons in this world is using unix with its morinic
convention of appending things to file names as a versioning system,
and not every moron in this world need to "exam" things. The unix
irrevalency, inprecision, driveling are paragoned above.

Here is a better documentation for the fileparse subroutine.

fileparse

fileparse divides a file name into 3 parts:
directory string, file name, file name
suffix. fileparse($filename, @suffixes) returns a
array of 3 elements ($name, $dir_path,
$suffix). The concocted result of
"dir_path$name$suffix" is guaranteed to equal to
$filename. The @suffixes is a array of strings,
for example ('\.html', '\.txt', '\.png'). These
strings are interpreted to be regular
expressions, and is matched against the end of
$filename.


But NOOO, perl morons are too enamored with driveling to write such
functional spec, after all, the code is sloppy and they don't REALLY
know what the code really does. This is not just one incompetence.
Perl is filled with them.

This report is on Perl version:
This is perl, v5.8.1-RC3 built for darwin-thread-multi-2level
(with 1 registered patch, see perl -V for more detail)

--

To the rookie programers out there, i advice against learning Perl.
(i suggest Python instead) Please see
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/perlr.html

Xah
xah at xahlee.org
http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
reply

Search Discussions

14 responses

  • Rich Krauter at Jan 25, 2004 at 5:58 am
    You're supposed to pass in regexes, perhaps? So your '.m' argument
    actually means "anything followed by an m" and not literally "a dot
    followed by an m". Just a guess, but that would explain your problem.
    Rich
    On Sun, 2004-01-25 at 00:31, Xah Lee wrote:

    Just bumped into another irresponsibility in perl.

    the crime in question this time is the module File::Basename.

    Reproduction:

    1. create a directory containing a file of this name: "cdrom.html".
    2. "use File::Basename;", with the line:
    ($name,$path,$suffix) = fileparse($File::Find::name, ('.html',
    '.m'));
    3. Notice that your cdrom.html will be parsed into "cdr" with suffix
    "om.html".

    expletive Perl and Perl slinging morons.

    Now, if you peruse the "documentation" of "perldoc File::Basename",
    you'll see that it shouldn't be so. AND, the writting as usuall is
    fantastic incompetent. To illustrate, i quote:

    --begin quote

    fileparse

    The fileparse() routine divides a file
    specification into three parts: a leading path, a
    file name, and a suffix. The path contains
    everything up to and including the last directory
    separator in the input file specification. The
    remainder of the input file specification is then
    divided into name and suffix based on the
    optional patterns you specify in
    @suffixlist. Each element of this list can be a
    qr-quoted pattern (or a string which is
    interpreted as a regular expression), and is
    matched against the end of name. If this
    succeeds, the matching portion of name is removed
    and prepended to suffix. By proper use of
    @suffixlist, you can remove file types or
    versions for examination.

    --end quote

    Note the last sentence: "By proper use of @suffixlist, you can remove
    file types or versions for examination." Now, this is in sync with the
    usual verbiages of unix man pages, of mentioning irrevalent things.
    Why the fuck do i need to know what is version, or examination what??
    Not every morons in this world is using unix with its morinic
    convention of appending things to file names as a versioning system,
    and not every moron in this world need to "exam" things. The unix
    irrevalency, inprecision, driveling are paragoned above.

    Here is a better documentation for the fileparse subroutine.

    fileparse

    fileparse divides a file name into 3 parts:
    directory string, file name, file name
    suffix. fileparse($filename, @suffixes) returns a
    array of 3 elements ($name, $dir_path,
    $suffix). The concocted result of
    "dir_path$name$suffix" is guaranteed to equal to
    $filename. The @suffixes is a array of strings,
    for example ('\.html', '\.txt', '\.png'). These
    strings are interpreted to be regular
    expressions, and is matched against the end of
    $filename.


    But NOOO, perl morons are too enamored with driveling to write such
    functional spec, after all, the code is sloppy and they don't REALLY
    know what the code really does. This is not just one incompetence.
    Perl is filled with them.

    This report is on Perl version:
    This is perl, v5.8.1-RC3 built for darwin-thread-multi-2level
    (with 1 registered patch, see perl -V for more detail)

    --

    To the rookie programers out there, i advice against learning Perl.
    (i suggest Python instead) Please see
    http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/perlr.html

    Xah
    xah at xahlee.org
    http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
    -------------- next part --------------
    An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
    URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20040125/a6f1de3f/attachment.htm
  • Walter Roberson at Jan 25, 2004 at 6:18 am
    In article <7fe97cc4.0401242131.22acf485 at posting.google.com>,
    Xah Lee wrote:
    :the crime in question this time is the module File::Basename.

    :1. create a directory containing a file of this name: "cdrom.html".
    :2. "use File::Basename;", with the line:
    : ($name,$path,$suffix) = fileparse($File::Find::name, ('.html',
    :'.m'));
    :3. Notice that your cdrom.html will be parsed into "cdr" with suffix
    :"om.html".

    :Now, if you peruse the "documentation" of "perldoc File::Basename",
    :you'll see that it shouldn't be so.

    The program did what it was documented to do.

    : The
    : remainder of the input file specification is then
    : divided into name and suffix based on the
    : optional patterns you specify in
    : @suffixlist. Each element of this list can be a
    : qr-quoted pattern (or a string which is
    : interpreted as a regular expression), and is
    : matched against the end of name. If this
    : succeeds, the matching portion of name is removed
    : and prepended to suffix.

    So the suffixlist is a set of *patterns*. And '.m' is a *pattern*
    that means "any character followed by the character 'm'.

    Probably what you wanted to code was:

    ($name,$path,$suffix) = fileparse($File::Find::name, ('\.html', '\.m'));


    : Here is a better documentation for the fileparse subroutine.

    Your "better" documentation does not describe how the directory string
    is derived.


    :Not every morons in this world is using unix with its morinic
    :convention of appending things to file names as a versioning system,

    There is no widespread unix convention of appending things to
    file names as a versioning system. The convention of appending
    a version was probably most common in VMS, which used filenames
    of the form $device:[directory.directory]filename.filetype;version
    such as $DISK0:[ROBERSON.SOURCE]HELLO.C;17

    The use of extension information was present in CPM (1973) -- borrowed
    from VMS. CPM begat QDOS which begat DOS which begat Windows.

    The VMS structure of filename.filetype;version was adopted as the
    ISO9660 filesystem for CDROMs. You don't *see* that because there
    are common extensions to provide filename mapping, but every
    ISO standard CDROM filesystem uses that structure underneath.
    Including the common Rockridge extensions, and including when you
    put a Joilet filesystem on a CDROM.
    --
    Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
    typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare. -- Blair Houghton.
  • Malcolm Dew-Jones at Jan 25, 2004 at 7:08 am
    Xah Lee (xah at xahlee.org) wrote:
    : Just bumped into another irresponsibility in perl.

    : the crime in question this time is the module File::Basename.

    : Reproduction:

    : 1. create a directory containing a file of this name: "cdrom.html".
    : 2. "use File::Basename;", with the line:
    : ($name,$path,$suffix) = fileparse($File::Find::name, ('.html',
    : '.m'));
    : 3. Notice that your cdrom.html will be parsed into "cdr" with suffix
    : "om.html".

    Well, that's what you asked for, isn't it.

    : expletive Perl and Perl slinging morons.

    : Now, if you peruse the "documentation" of "perldoc File::Basename",
    : you'll see that it shouldn't be so. AND, the writting as usuall is
    : fantastic incompetent. To illustrate, i quote:

    : --begin quote

    : fileparse

    : The fileparse() routine divides a file
    : specification into three parts: a leading path, a
    : file name, and a suffix. The path contains
    : everything up to and including the last directory
    : separator in the input file specification. The
    : remainder of the input file specification is then
    : divided into name and suffix based on the
    : optional patterns you specify in
    : @suffixlist. Each element of this list can be a
    : qr-quoted pattern (or a string which is
    : interpreted as a regular expression), and is
    : matched against the end of name. If this
    : succeeds, the matching portion of name is removed
    : and prepended to suffix. By proper use of
    : @suffixlist, you can remove file types or
    : versions for examination.

    : --end quote

    Well it sounds to me like it says it will do what it did.

    : Note the last sentence: "By proper use of @suffixlist, you can remove
    : file types or versions for examination." Now, this is in sync with the
    : usual verbiages of unix man pages, of mentioning irrevalent things.

    How is it irrelevent to mention the purpose of the parameter?

    : Why the fuck do i need to know what is version, or examination what??

    If you don't need to know the version then don't ask the routine to parse
    it off of the file name.

    As for "or examination what", it takes some pretty obscure, poetical
    parsing of english to make sense of this, so I will instead merely assume
    you lacked the ability to understand what you read.


    : Not every morons in this world is using unix with its morinic
    : convention of appending things to file names as a versioning system,

    Well that's right isn't it. Some of us morons use other moronic systems,
    such as VMS sometimes. I must admit though, I rather find VMS's
    "moronic", automatic, operating system supported _versioning_ of every
    file is an extremely nice feature, allowing me (potentially) to examine,
    recover, or reuse, any one of the versions of every file I ever touched
    (since the last PURGE, anyway).

    And you're right, one has no need to know the version number of a file for
    any normal operation on VMS any more than a unix programmer normally needs
    to know the inode number of a file, but on the other hand, when you do
    certain file manipulations then you do need to know it, and since the
    easiest way to access it is via the file name then it looks to me that in
    that case the version number returned for my _examination_ by the above
    mentioned module might be a good way to do that.

    (You sure are rude by the way.)


    : and not every moron in this world need to "exam" things.

    "exam" is a noun, and therefore this is also sort of true, but only
    because it's a bit of a tautology to say that somene doesn't need to do
    something nonsensical.


    : The unix
    : irrevalency, inprecision, driveling are paragoned above.


    : Here is a better documentation for the fileparse subroutine.

    : fileparse

    : fileparse divides a file name into 3 parts:
    : directory string, file name, file name
    : suffix. fileparse($filename, @suffixes) returns a
    : array of 3 elements ($name, $dir_path,
    : $suffix). The concocted result of
    : "dir_path$name$suffix" is guaranteed to equal to
    : $filename. The @suffixes is a array of strings,
    : for example ('\.html', '\.txt', '\.png'). These
    : strings are interpreted to be regular
    : expressions, and is matched against the end of
    : $filename.

    "concocted"?


    : But NOOO, ... morons are too enamored with driveling

    well well, what do we find at the end, sure enough, this also is true.
  • Xah Lee at Jan 26, 2004 at 5:43 pm
    just a few notes to wrap this thread up.

    * several perl morons didn't heed my imperative of perusing the notes
    in "perldoc File::Basename". By their nature, they skimmed and scanned
    and came back with "the doc said so!". They posses no attention to
    detail nor knowledge of precision writing, consequently with lowered
    reading comprehension. Like a man exposed to noise or shit or
    malfunction, they hear nothing, smell nothing and ebythin's alright.

    * when it gets one to think about design, File::Basename is one
    fucking turd. The suffix list should not be regex in the first fucking
    place. (it shouldn't even require a suffix list by default). The need
    to feed it OS type (fileparse_set_fstype($os)) is fucking defeating
    the main point of using this module.

    Fuck Perl and fuck Perl morons around the world.

    Xah
    xah at xahlee.org
    http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html

    --------------------------------------
    Responsible Software License
    By: Xah Lee, 2003 July

    Software is a interesting invention. Software has this interesting
    property, that it can be duplicated without cost, as if like copying
    money. Never in history are goods duplicable without cost. But with
    the invention of computer, the ephemeral non-physical programs breaks
    that precept. In digital form, program and music and books all become
    goods in essentially infinite quantity.

    All is good except, bads in digital form can also multiply equally,
    just as goods. Wellknown examples are computer viruses and email
    spams. Unknown to the throng of unix morons is software bads. In a
    unix moron's mind, the predominant quip among hackers is "where is
    your code?", singnifying the mentality that a hacker's prestige is
    judged on how much code he has contributed to the community.
    Therefore, every fucking studs and happy-go-lucky morons put their
    homework on the net, with a big stamp of FREE, and quite proud of
    their "contributions" to the world. These digital bads, including
    irresponsible programs, protocols, and languages, spread like viruses
    until they obtained the touting right of being the STARDARD or MOST
    POPULAR in industry, as if indicating superior quality. Examplary are
    C, Perl, RFC, X-Windows, Apache, MySQL, Pretty Home Page (and almost
    anything out of unix). The harm of a virus is direct. The harm of
    irresponsible software (esp with unscrupulous promotion) is the
    creation of a entire generation of bad thinking and monkey coders. The
    scales can be compared as to putting a bullet in a person brain,
    versus creating a creed with the Holocaust aftermath.

    Distribution of software is easily like pollution. I thought of a law
    that would ban the distribution of software bads, or like charging for
    garbage collection in modern societies. The problem is the difficulty
    of deciding what is good and what is bad. Like in so many things, i
    think the ultimate help is for people to be aware; so-called
    education; I believe, if people are made aware of the situation i
    spoke of, then irresponsible software will decrease, regardless any
    individual's opinion.

    --

    The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm that
    irresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin with
    responsible license, such that the producer of a software will be
    liable for damage incurred thru their software. As we know, today's
    software licenses comes with a disclaimer that essentially says the
    software is sold as is and the producer is not responsible for any
    damage, nor guaranteeing the functionality of the software. It is
    this, that allows all sorts of sloppitudes and fucking fads and myths
    to rampage and survive in the software industry. Once when software
    producers are liable for their products, just as bridge or airplane or
    transportation or house builders are responsible for the things they
    build, then injurious fads and creeds the likes of (Perl, Programing
    Patterns, eXtreme Programing, "Universal" Modeling Language...) will
    automatically disappear by dint of market force without anyone's
    stipulation.

    In our already established infrastructure of software and industry
    practices that is so already fucked up by existing shams, we can not
    immediately expect a about-face in software licenses from 0 liability
    to 100% liability. We should gradually make them responsible. And
    this, comes not from artificial force, but gradual establishment of
    awareness among software professionals and their consumers. (Producers
    includes single individual to software houses, and consumers includes
    not just mom & pop but from IT corps to military.)

    archived at
    http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license.html

    Xah
    xahlee.org
    http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
  • Walter Roberson at Jan 26, 2004 at 6:32 pm
    In article <7fe97cc4.0401260943.2442ba4e at posting.google.com>,
    Xah Lee wrote:
    :* when it gets one to think about design, File::Basename is one
    :fucking turd. The suffix list should not be regex in the first fucking
    :place. (it shouldn't even require a suffix list by default). The need
    :to feed it OS type (fileparse_set_fstype($os)) is fucking defeating
    :the main point of using this module.

    You don't -need- to feed it the OS type: it defaults to using
    the information from the currently running OS ($^O). The
    fileparse_set_fstype is there so that one can write routines targetted
    at specific OSes. For example, one could import a VMS log file onto
    a Unix system and parse it there without having to roll one's own
    filename parsing routines.

    :The suffix list should not be regex in the first fucking
    :place.

    Why not? Anyone who read the documentation would see immediately that
    regexes were called for in that position. Perhaps -you- don't need
    the flexibility of having regexes there, but is that any reason to
    deny other people the flexibility?

    :it shouldn't even require a suffix list by default

    It doesn't. If you don't pass it a suffix list, then that will be
    treated as the empty array, and suffixes will not be broken out.

    Are you perhaps saying that on Unix systems, it should default to
    using '\.[^.]*$' as the suffix list, thus breaking out from the
    last period onwards?
    --
    Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
    not tried it. -- Donald Knuth
  • Xah Lee at Jan 27, 2004 at 3:04 am
    a correction to my previous post.

    In my previous post i said one of the stupidity of Perl's
    File::Basename module is that it requires user to tell it OS type.
    This is incorrect.

    Thanks to Walter Roberson (roberson at ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca) for this
    correction.

    Xah
    xah at xahlee.org
    http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html
  • Tassilo v. Parseval at Jan 27, 2004 at 7:23 am
    [ F'up set ]

    Also sprach Xah Lee:
    a correction to my previous post.

    In my previous post i said one of the stupidity of Perl's
    File::Basename module is that it requires user to tell it OS type.
    This is incorrect.
    You also said that the suffix list would be required.

    This is also incorrect.

    Tassilo
    --
    $_=q#",}])!JAPH!qq(tsuJ[{@"tnirp}3..0}_$;//::niam/s~=)]3[))_$-3(rellac(=_$({
    pam{rekcahbus})(rekcah{lrePbus})(lreP{rehtonabus})!JAPH!qq(rehtona{tsuJbus#;
    $_=reverse,s+(?<=sub).+q#q!'"qq.\t$&."'!#+sexisexiixesixeseg;y~\n~~dddd;eval
  • Gerrit Holl at Jan 25, 2004 at 9:10 am
    Just bumped into another irresponsibility in perl.
    What's this doing in the Python newsgroup?

    Gerrit.
  • Xah lee at Jan 25, 2004 at 9:36 am
    think not what other messages are doing, think of what your message is
    doing.

    i am a known positive troll. It is people like you, who piggy back on
    me, supports my constructive undoing.

    Thanks.

    PS if perl is demising, then it will benefit Python (because they are
    competitors), and as well all other non-irresponsible programers and
    languages, and consequently the programing industry, and society, and
    software might stop to crash, and people might start to like computers.
    Please read the following article:

    ---------------------------
    Responsible Licenses
    Xah Lee, 2003 July
    http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license.html

    Software is a interesting invention. Software has this interesting
    property, that it can be duplicated without cost, as if like copying
    money. Never in history are goods duplicable without cost. But with
    the invention of computer, the ephemeral non-physical programs breaks
    that precept. In digital form, program and music and books all become
    goods in essentially infinite quantity.

    All is good except, bads in digital form can also multiply equally,
    just as goods. Wellknown examples are computer viruses and email
    spams. Unknown to the throng of unix morons is software bads. In a
    unix moron's mind, the predominant quip among hackers is "where is
    your code?", singnifying the mentality that a hacker's prestige is
    judged on how much code he has contributed to the community.
    Therefore, every fucking studs and happy-go-lucky morons put their
    homework on the net, with a big stamp of FREE, and quite proud of
    their "contributions" to the world. These digital bads, including
    irresponsible programs, protocols, and languages, spread like viruses
    until they obtained the touting right of being the STARDARD or MOST
    POPULAR in industry, as if indicating superior quality. Examplary are
    C, Perl, RFC, X-Windows, Apache, MySQL, Pretty Home Page (and almost
    anything out of unix). The harm of a virus is direct. The harm of
    irresponsible software (esp with unscrupulous promotion) is the
    creation of a entire generation of bad thinking and monkey coders. The
    scales can be compared as to putting a bullet in a person brain,
    versus creating a creed with the Holocaust aftermath.

    Distribution of software is easily like pollution. I thought of a law
    that would ban the distribution of software bads, or like charging for
    garbage collection in modern societies. The problem is the difficulty
    of deciding what is good and what is bad. Like in so many things, i
    think the ultimate help is for people to be aware; so-called
    education; I believe, if people are made aware of the situation i
    spoke of, then irresponsible software will decrease, regardless any
    individual's opinion.

    --

    The most important measure to counter the tremendous harm that
    irresponsible software has done to the industry is to begin with
    responsible license, such that the producer of a software will be
    liable for damage incurred thru their software. As we know, today's
    software licenses comes with a disclaimer that essentially says the
    software is sold as is and the producer is not responsible for any
    damage, nor guaranteeing the functionality of the software. It is
    this, that allows all sorts of sloppitudes and fucking fads and myths
    to rampage and survive in the software industry. Once when software
    producers are liable for their products, just as bridge or airplane or
    transportation or house builders are responsible for the things they
    build, then injurious fads and creeds the likes of (Perl, Programing
    Patterns, eXtreme Programing, "Universal" Modeling Language...) will
    automatically disappear by dint of market force without anyone's
    stipulation.

    In our already established infrastructure of software and industry
    practices that is so already fucked up by existing shams, we can not
    immediately expect a about-face in software licenses from 0 liability
    to 100% liability. We should gradually make them responsible. And
    this, comes not from artificial force, but gradual establishment of
    awareness among software professionals and their consumers. (Producers
    includes single individual to software houses, and consumers includes
    not just mom & pop but from IT corps to military.)

    ------------

    Xah
    xah at xahlee.org
    http://xahlee.org/PageTwo_dir/more.html

    On Jan 25, 2004, at 1:10 AM, Gerrit Holl wrote:

    Just bumped into another irresponsibility in perl.
    What's this doing in the Python newsgroup?

    Gerrit.
  • Michele Simionato at Jan 25, 2004 at 10:51 am
    xah at xahlee.org (Xah Lee) wrote in message news:<7fe97cc4.0401242131.22acf485 at posting.google.com>...
    <snip trollish rants against Perl>

    Please, at least don't cross-post (and don't make me to cross post).

    _____________________
    /| /| | |
    __|| | Please do not |
    / O O\__ | feed the |
    / \ | Trolls |
    / \ \|_____________________|
    / _ \ \ ||
    / |\____\ \ ||
    / | | | |\____/ ||
    / \|_|_|/ | _||
    / / \ |____| ||
    / | | | --|
    ____ --|
    * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
    *-- _--\ _ \ | ||
    / _ \\ | / `
    * / \_ /- | | |
    * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
  • Gnari at Jan 25, 2004 at 12:20 pm
    "Xah Lee" <xah at xahlee.org> wrote in message
    news:7fe97cc4.0401242131.22acf485 at posting.google.com...
    Just bumped into another irresponsibility in perl.
    [snipped rand about File::Basename docs]
    ...
    Why the fuck do i need to know what is version, or examination what??
    Not every morons in this world is using unix with its morinic
    convention of appending things to file names as a versioning system,
    and not every moron in this world need to "exam" things.
    you are right. the docs do not seem to address the
    needs of morons. there sould be a shorter version of
    the docs, specially for morons, with each example
    if larger font, repeated 10 times.
    To the rookie programers out there, i advice against learning Perl.
    (i suggest Python instead) Please see
    http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/perlr.html
    thank you

    gnari
  • Michele Dondi at Jan 26, 2004 at 7:45 pm

    On 24 Jan 2004 21:31:36 -0800, xah at xahlee.org (Xah Lee) wrote:
    Just bumped into another irresponsibility in perl. [snip]
    expletive Perl and Perl slinging morons.
    Taking into account the aggressive and trollish tone of your post I'm
    surprised by how polite the answers you got are. Nay, I found
    interesting the OT about OSes and file versions: a proof that a bad
    seed can give good fruits!

    I don't know why I'm taking care of answering you seriously, but if
    you don't like "Perl's nature", why are you bothering with it in the
    first place? If you can't stand its real/presumed *nix-isms, why are
    you using it?

    Also, you may have noticed it, but this is a discussion group about
    *Perl* and people here is highly likely to be fond of Perl, appreciate
    its "nature" and so on... so what did you expect to receive as an
    answer to your post?

    What do you gain in particular by criticizing an excellently and
    *clearly* written piece of documentation (of an useful package!), by
    exposing your failing to understand it because of your stupidity and
    ignorance about a basic concept of the language like "pattern"?
    you'll see that it shouldn't be so. AND, the writting as usuall is
    fantastic incompetent. To illustrate, i quote:
    Haha, thanks! I'll make that a .sig!


    Michele
    --
    # This prints: Just another Perl hacker,
    seek DATA,15,0 and print q... <DATA>;
    __END__
  • Joe Mason at Jan 26, 2004 at 1:53 am

    In article <tmqa10d6a542ma6k1ao6tnupvj0gbtser7 at 4ax.com>, Michele Dondi wrote:
    Also, you may have noticed it, but this is a discussion group about
    *Perl* and people here is highly likely to be fond of Perl, appreciate
    its "nature" and so on... so what did you expect to receive as an
    answer to your post?
    No it's not. This is a newsgroup about Ruby. And that's a newsgroup
    about Python. And that over there's a newsgroup about Scheme.

    Only one of these groups is actually about Perl, so I've set the
    followups there. The troll is actually on-topic there. Please keep
    your replies there, too.

    Joe
  • Michele Dondi at Jan 27, 2004 at 8:20 am
    On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 20:45:19 +0100, I wrote:

    [OT, slightly edited]
    you'll see that it shouldn't be so. AND, the writting as usuall is
    fantastic incompetent. To illustrate, i quote:
    Haha, thanks! I'll make that a .sig!
    I guess it is fair to point out my own errors:
    Also, you may have noticed it, but this is a discussion group about
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    This should be "you may *not* have noticed it".
    *Perl* and people here is highly likely to be fond of Perl, appreciate
    ^^

    *are*


    Michele

Related Discussions