X
xhoster
Your specification was to do it in hex. So doing it an hex is hardly
a limitation. If you wanted a different specification, you should have
specified it.
Xho
Your specification was to do it in hex. So doing it an hex is hardly
a limitation. If you wanted a different specification, you should have
specified it.
Xho
N
Nico Coetzee
As another poster pointed out, "this module seemed to present some
options that just didn't jump out". And BTW: the specification was "to
increment a four character field to cater for more then 10000 unique
records" (summarized), and the hex portion was simply in the title
probably because that was the direction the original poster was thinking in.
What I see in here is exactly what I see in our work situation - a lot
of nice ideas, but with disregard with real life issues. The trick is to
find the balance - and I belief that in this specific situation the
module actually presents a better overall solution.
Cheers
C
cartercc
However, when you do have the
Probably because I made a typo. I tried the first three suggestions in
the same script and used the first one that worked. I didn't have the
time or interest in the 'school' solution.
I agree that a passing acquaintance with the built in Perl functions
helps a lot, but I've also found through experience that CPAN provides
answers to every question I've asked so far, so I've developed the
habit of searching CPAN first. I know ... it's a bad habit. I'll try to
break it, I promise.
I've been playing on the NGs for about twelve years now, and been
through my share of wars, including the top posting vs. bottom posting
war. I always attribute when any ambiguity would result from
non-attribution. I also assume that there is no possibility of
ambuguity when I quote directly from the post to which I am replying.
If this habit offends this NG, please let me know and I will make
appropriate adjustments. I don't want to offend anyone or create any
kind of controversary, but some NGs have peculiar conventions to which
I do not ordinarily conform unless there is some real good reason for
doing so.
Thank you very much for your help, I appreciate your response. I might
even decide to monitor c.l.p.misc. and participate some.
Charles Carter.
Probably because I made a typo. I tried the first three suggestions in
the same script and used the first one that worked. I didn't have the
time or interest in the 'school' solution.
I agree that a passing acquaintance with the built in Perl functions
helps a lot, but I've also found through experience that CPAN provides
answers to every question I've asked so far, so I've developed the
habit of searching CPAN first. I know ... it's a bad habit. I'll try to
break it, I promise.
I've been playing on the NGs for about twelve years now, and been
through my share of wars, including the top posting vs. bottom posting
war. I always attribute when any ambiguity would result from
non-attribution. I also assume that there is no possibility of
ambuguity when I quote directly from the post to which I am replying.
If this habit offends this NG, please let me know and I will make
appropriate adjustments. I don't want to offend anyone or create any
kind of controversary, but some NGs have peculiar conventions to which
I do not ordinarily conform unless there is some real good reason for
doing so.
Thank you very much for your help, I appreciate your response. I might
even decide to monitor c.l.p.misc. and participate some.
Charles Carter.
D
David Squire
There certainly is such a possibility. I have no way of knowing to whom
you are replying above, since you snipped the attribution.
Many people set their newsreaders to show only new posts. This means
attribution is vital.
DS
C
cartercc
I also assume that there is no possibility of
Then again, what's the relevance? I didn't attribute the above quotes.
They stand alone, and the identity of the posters doesn't matter. What
relevance does it have if the poster's name is David Squire, Squire
David, Tim Berners-Lee, or Ulysses S. Grant?
I'll be the first to agree usegroup messages should strive for clarity.
In fact, I remember the days when posts arrived in batches, and you
took them as they came, unthreaded and all. Bottom posting was a
necessity if you wanted people to understand the conversation. Now,
bottom posting is considered rude in the extreme (in most groups,
anyway).
Again, I don't want to cause any sort of controversary or discomfort.
I've never before been told to attribute quotations in the same thread
(different from citing extraneous sources), and quite frankly I find
the caution a little odd. However, I will exercise care in quoting from
now on.
CC
Then again, what's the relevance? I didn't attribute the above quotes.
They stand alone, and the identity of the posters doesn't matter. What
relevance does it have if the poster's name is David Squire, Squire
David, Tim Berners-Lee, or Ulysses S. Grant?
I'll be the first to agree usegroup messages should strive for clarity.
In fact, I remember the days when posts arrived in batches, and you
took them as they came, unthreaded and all. Bottom posting was a
necessity if you wanted people to understand the conversation. Now,
bottom posting is considered rude in the extreme (in most groups,
anyway).
Again, I don't want to cause any sort of controversary or discomfort.
I've never before been told to attribute quotations in the same thread
(different from citing extraneous sources), and quite frankly I find
the caution a little odd. However, I will exercise care in quoting from
now on.
CC
D
David Squire
So, as the OP said, all readers can see who wrote what. Remember old
posts in the thread may not be visible to all (already marked read on an
earlier visit, author in killfile, etc. etc.)
[snip]
Bottom posting was a
In none that I frequent.
The wikipedia netiquette entry (for example), includes "When following
up on an article, quote the minimum text necessary to give some context
to your reply and be careful to attribute the quote to the correct
person." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette)
This convention has been around for a long time.
DS
C
cartercc
The wikipedia netiquette entry (for example), includes "When following
Perhaps -- I'm certainly not in a position to disagree with this, and
I'll concede that you are correct. I've been posting on usenet since
the mid 90's, and posting with great frequency, on a large number of
different groups, and this is the first I've heard of the convention.
IMO, there's a lot of miscommunication in newsgroups, but I think that
most of it deals with matters of tone. People say that ninety percent
of all communication is nonverbal, and I believe it. It's at least 90%
if not more. The problem with text based communication systems is that
the nonverbal component is stripped out, leaving only the 10% (or less)
of the message that is represented in black characters on a white
background. I don't know if I've ever seen an example of a
miscommunication resulting from the non-attribution of a direct
quotation from the immediately precedeing post. I can't say that there
hasn't been any, and I can't say that I've never seen it, but only that
I don't recall having seen one.
I certainly don't expect to change your mind, and I have no intention
of trying. You aren't going to change my mind, either. I acknowledge
that you feel strongly about this, and I will even acknowledge that you
are right. However, if I don't see any untoward consequence of my
failure to attach a name to a directly quoted preceding post, I'll
probably not change the way I've been posting.
You seem to be a bright, knowledgeable, and forthright fellow, and I
honestly don't want to offend you in any way. How about we accept this
exchange as a difference in longstanding habits, with my concession
that you are right, and move on to more productive issues?
CC
Perhaps -- I'm certainly not in a position to disagree with this, and
I'll concede that you are correct. I've been posting on usenet since
the mid 90's, and posting with great frequency, on a large number of
different groups, and this is the first I've heard of the convention.
IMO, there's a lot of miscommunication in newsgroups, but I think that
most of it deals with matters of tone. People say that ninety percent
of all communication is nonverbal, and I believe it. It's at least 90%
if not more. The problem with text based communication systems is that
the nonverbal component is stripped out, leaving only the 10% (or less)
of the message that is represented in black characters on a white
background. I don't know if I've ever seen an example of a
miscommunication resulting from the non-attribution of a direct
quotation from the immediately precedeing post. I can't say that there
hasn't been any, and I can't say that I've never seen it, but only that
I don't recall having seen one.
I certainly don't expect to change your mind, and I have no intention
of trying. You aren't going to change my mind, either. I acknowledge
that you feel strongly about this, and I will even acknowledge that you
are right. However, if I don't see any untoward consequence of my
failure to attach a name to a directly quoted preceding post, I'll
probably not change the way I've been posting.
You seem to be a bright, knowledgeable, and forthright fellow, and I
honestly don't want to offend you in any way. How about we accept this
exchange as a difference in longstanding habits, with my concession
that you are right, and move on to more productive issues?
CC
D
David Squire
Then I will give a couple of examples of such consequences (knowing that
they are apparently futile
) :The first, and most obvious, is that you risk being killfiled by people
who could answer your questions, resulting in them never seeing your
questions. The comp.lang.* groups are renowned for being amongst the
stroppiest about the observance of posting guidelines perhaps considered
old-fashioned elsewhere.
The second example is simply an illustration of why attribution is
useful, as well as polite. Imagine that a group is haunted by
knowntroll@underbridge. knowntroll is in my killfile, so I don't see
his/her posts. You reply to a post by knowntroll, including an
unattributed fragment. Without an attribution such as
"knowntroll@underbridge wrote:", I don't have a flag saying "ignore this
thread", since I have not seen the post that started it. This can result
in troll-feeding and general clutter.
I could go on, but it has been long enough since there was any Perl in
this thread. I don't want to be killfiled myself!
Agreed.
DS
A
A. Sinan Unur
(e-mail address removed) wrote in
Since you seem to be big on degrees, here something for you: When you
wrote the theses you needed to write for your degrees, did you you just
say "some guy wrote in some book that ..." or did you actually include a
full reference for each of the works you were citing?
The same principle applies here as well. It does not matter whether the
quotation stands on its own etc. You are expected to cite correctly when
you cite others.
And, oh yeah, I have a few degrees, and I do get things done in the real
world as well.
Anyway, bye!
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <[email protected]>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://augustmail.com/~tadmc/clpmisc/clpmisc_guidelines.html
Since you seem to be big on degrees, here something for you: When you
wrote the theses you needed to write for your degrees, did you you just
say "some guy wrote in some book that ..." or did you actually include a
full reference for each of the works you were citing?
The same principle applies here as well. It does not matter whether the
quotation stands on its own etc. You are expected to cite correctly when
you cite others.
And, oh yeah, I have a few degrees, and I do get things done in the real
world as well.
Anyway, bye!
Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <[email protected]>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)
comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
http://augustmail.com/~tadmc/clpmisc/clpmisc_guidelines.html
C
cartercc
When you
Actually, Sinan, I practiced law for 17 years before a career change
to IT. If you've ever read any legal writing, you will know that not
only every sentence needs to be supported by citation to appropriate
legal authority, but multiple citations are very much favored, the more
the better. In fact, you can read some legal literature that in the
substantive sections contain whole pages with nothing but a single
footnote with citations to authority, and some footnotes continue for
pages.
This is why I said that I make it a practice to include citations in
all cases where they are needed to avoid ambiguity. More to the point,
I assume that people responding to a thread have read the prior posts
and have something to contribute to the conversation. I think we all
have participated in threads where someone pops into the middle of a
discussion without any idea of what was said before, and seen how that
person makes a fool of himself. I don't know of any newsreader that
doesn't thread messages, and certainly the web based newsreaders do. I
certainly don't believe that anyone who participates in a news group in
comp.lang would be ignorant of the concept of threading. People
participating in a discussion owe the other participants the obligation
to be aware of the prior thread of conversation.
Do I think it's necessary to always attribute quotations? No, I don't.
Do I think it's necessary to sometimes do so? Yes, in situations where
(1) the identity of the person quoted person is relevant to the
discussion, where (2) the quotations appear in posts other than the
immediately preceding post, i.e., a message other than the one replied
to, and where (3) there is any loss of clarity or risk of ambiguity in
lack of attribution.
As I said, I have never meant any offense. I've conceded that I have
violated the customary etiquette of c.l.p.misc. I've offered my mea
culpa. But ... I've long since turned off the quoting feature of my
newsreader, and this exchange has not persuaded me to turn it back on.
If I offended, I'm sorry, and you have the consolation of knowing that
I won't be bothering you much in the future.
CC
Actually, Sinan, I practiced law for 17 years before a career change
to IT. If you've ever read any legal writing, you will know that not
only every sentence needs to be supported by citation to appropriate
legal authority, but multiple citations are very much favored, the more
the better. In fact, you can read some legal literature that in the
substantive sections contain whole pages with nothing but a single
footnote with citations to authority, and some footnotes continue for
pages.
This is why I said that I make it a practice to include citations in
all cases where they are needed to avoid ambiguity. More to the point,
I assume that people responding to a thread have read the prior posts
and have something to contribute to the conversation. I think we all
have participated in threads where someone pops into the middle of a
discussion without any idea of what was said before, and seen how that
person makes a fool of himself. I don't know of any newsreader that
doesn't thread messages, and certainly the web based newsreaders do. I
certainly don't believe that anyone who participates in a news group in
comp.lang would be ignorant of the concept of threading. People
participating in a discussion owe the other participants the obligation
to be aware of the prior thread of conversation.
Do I think it's necessary to always attribute quotations? No, I don't.
Do I think it's necessary to sometimes do so? Yes, in situations where
(1) the identity of the person quoted person is relevant to the
discussion, where (2) the quotations appear in posts other than the
immediately preceding post, i.e., a message other than the one replied
to, and where (3) there is any loss of clarity or risk of ambiguity in
lack of attribution.
As I said, I have never meant any offense. I've conceded that I have
violated the customary etiquette of c.l.p.misc. I've offered my mea
culpa. But ... I've long since turned off the quoting feature of my
newsreader, and this exchange has not persuaded me to turn it back on.
If I offended, I'm sorry, and you have the consolation of knowing that
I won't be bothering you much in the future.
CC
T
Tad McClellan
Why not stop the sentence right there?
(like everybody else does.)
A proper newsreader will supply an attribution for you by default,
so it is more work to not attribute than it is to attribute, because
you have to snip out the attribution.
I could understand your qualifier if it meant saving some work
at the expense of clarity, but I don't get it when it can
be had for "free" with no damage to clarity...
But your followup is not the "end of the line".
Take this followup of mine for instance. It contains stuff from
3 people, but only 2 of them can be identified. It is hard to
refer to the missing unattributed person in the middle.
When your sub-thread gets 6 generations deep, the probability of
ambiguity begins to approach one.
It is unambiguous when you followup, then a little ambiguous when
I followup, then hopelessly ambiguous when the other 3 people
chime in.
We already have.
The Posting Guidelines are the consensus of this newsgroup. We had
open discussions and when round-and-round developing what to
include in them.
I dunno what world you live in, but providing an attribution is
not "peculiar" to this NG, it is expected in the wide majority
of Big 8 newsgroups.
Come on in, the water's fine!
T
Tad McClellan
Now when *I* want to refer to this "you", what do I say?
If I say "you", it will be taken to be cartercc, so that won't do.
I'm reduced to saying "the OP" or "the guy who posted 2 generations ago"
or some other such silly and cumbersome thing instead of simply
saying "Larry" or whatever.
While there may be only 1 person discussing attributions with you,
it is not him alone that you are addressing/offending, it is
nearly everybody in the NG, since attribution is the norm.
T
Tad McClellan
Another soul saved. Hallelujah!
Isn't that simply wonderful?
I made my living for several years helping publishers of legal
textbooks deal with all of that.
Given how NNTP propogates articles, that is a wildly invalid assumption.
It often happens that a followup appears well _before_ the article that
is being followed up to.
It is even possible that the followed-up-to article *never* appears
on a particular newsfeed...
But since nearly everybody else does, you gotta expect to pay the price.
But, since your followup can in turn be followed up to, #2 is never
valid, since the unattributed part is no longer part of the one
being replied to...
.... pretty much guaranteeing loss of clarity or risk of ambiguity.
It ain't just us man.
S
Sherm Pendley
Another one saved from the Dark Side! Hooray!
sherm--