Command Line

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

DKW> Ok, how about a rough draft that can be
DKW> criticized/expanded/revised?

Thanks, David! I like this idea, but I leave the wording of it to
those of you with sufficient knowledge and experience.

dispatch is only for sub calling hashes. you dispatch through a
sub. the name and concept predates perl (i did this in assembly
decades ago). this is just basic data structure stuff. the reader
should be refered to perlreftut, perlref, perldsc and perllol

Uri, I think you'd better talk to the authors of "Learning Perl" and
ask them to include references a.s.a.p., or else you cannot expect the
beginners to understand this coming FAQ entry...
;-)

 

[David K. Wall]

Thanks, David! I like this idea, but I leave the wording of it to
those of you with sufficient knowledge and experience.

That's also what I thought, but just the *attempt* at writing a FAQ entry and
having it critiqued is a learning experience, too. Technical writing is a
skill, not just something technical people do, otherwise all of us here would
have articles and books published.

Besides, I didn't see anyone else doing it, so I thought I'd at least try to
get the ball rolling.

 

[Uri Guttman]

DKW> That's also what I thought, but just the *attempt* at writing a
DKW> FAQ entry and having it critiqued is a learning experience, too.
DKW> Technical writing is a skill, not just something technical people
DKW> do, otherwise all of us here would have articles and books
DKW> published.

yes, tech writing is very hard which is why there so few tech books and
docs are well written. a great example of good tech writing is damian
conway's object oriented perl. or any of his other writing (see the
perl6 exegeses or the pod of his modules).

DKW> Besides, I didn't see anyone else doing it, so I thought I'd at
DKW> least try to get the ball rolling.

glad you did. i have more edits on the last draft i will send in
soon. it has to be podded and then you need to send it to p5p and/or the
faq maintainer (whoever that is now).

uri

 

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

That's also what I thought, ...

Just to prevent any misunderstandings: I've no doubt that you have
that "sufficient knowledge and experience". The only reason why I said
so was to preclude myself from the potential contributors. ;-)

 

[David K. Wall]

Just to prevent any misunderstandings: I've no doubt that you have
that "sufficient knowledge and experience".

At least I can fake it well enough to fool you, eh?

The only reason why I said
so was to preclude myself from the potential contributors. ;-)

Yeah, yeah. Even if the humility is justified that doesn't stop you or
anyone else from being a critic.

 

[Matt Garrish]

That almost (but not quite) earned you a killfile entry.

The whole idea of a killfile for anything but spam is a bit draconian, don't
you think? I've never bothered to killfile anyone on usenet, because not
liking what someone says isn't justification for turning a blind eye to
them. It seems like a bit of neo-McCarthyism, where you hope to drown out
dissent by force. You don't agree with me, say so. I have more respect for
someone who argues an alternate position than for someone who writes a silly
*plonk* message. (I just felt like ranting about killfiles, by the way, so
don't take anything I've written as being a comment on you or your post.)

Oh, and McCarthy would have branded you all pinko commies for using Perl
(just to make this somewhat on topic... : )

Matt

 

[gnari]

The whole idea of a killfile for anything but spam is a bit draconian, don't
you think? I've never bothered to killfile anyone on usenet, because not
liking what someone says isn't justification for turning a blind eye to
them. It seems like a bit of neo-McCarthyism, where you hope to drown out
dissent by force. .....

amazing point of view.
Am I using force when I do not read articles written by someone that
annoys me? Am I using violence, maybe, if I do not buy books written
by authors I do not like?

Is this not a bit egocentric ? Is it so unbearable that there exist people
that are not interested in you, and avoid meeting you?

there are way too many messages on usenet, so one must use some sort
of filtering. the first is the name of the newsgroup. next is the Subject
line.
and then there is the From line.

maybe it is the name killfile that disturbs you.
or maybe the sound of the plonk

gnari

 

[Sam Holden]

The whole idea of a killfile for anything but spam is a bit draconian, don't
you think?

So you read every single non-spam post sent to usenet?

Or maybe you filter (aka killfiling) based on the Newsgroup header, and
ignore those posts you suspect won't interest you in other newsgroups.

Or maybe you filter (aka killfiling) based on the Subject header, and
ignore those posts you suspect won't interest interest you?

Not everyone has the time to read every single post to usenet. In fact
most people don't have the time to read every single post to this
newsgroup, and hence there are some messages they don't read.

Filtering out posts from people they suspect (and may well be
incorrect, but the other alternative is not reading any posts) won't
contribute anything or whose posts will annoy them, or who aren't going
to learn anything from replies or whatever is the only way they can
manage the volume of posts in order to possibly help those with
interesting questions, or those who they think are more likely to
benefit from the posts.

 

[Matt Garrish]

amazing point of view.
Am I using force when I do not read articles written by someone that
annoys me? Am I using violence, maybe, if I do not buy books written
by authors I do not like?

You don't seem to understand the difference between force and violence. And
yes, if you try to round everyone up and boycott a bookstore into removing a
book you are using force, the force of numbers. If you quietly killfile
someone, fine. If you declare publicly that all people should killfile
someone (which is all that a plonk message is), you're stating to others
that the person's point of view is wrong. Not because you can refute it,
mind you, but simply because you don't want to hear it.

Is this not a bit egocentric ? Is it so unbearable that there exist people
that are not interested in you, and avoid meeting you?

How you got to this absurd assumption is beyond me. I can't even think of a
way to respond because it's so off-base from anything I wrote. I have no
problem if you don't want to listen to anything I have to say, or anyone
else. What I do have a problem with is ignorance, and a killfile used for
anything but spam is a tool of ignorance.

there are way too many messages on usenet, so one must use some sort
of filtering. the first is the name of the newsgroup. next is the Subject
line.
and then there is the From line.

And that's my whole point. Again without mentioning spam, how would you
justify ignoring anything someone posts simply because of their name? (or
email, or fake email, as the case may be) As a simple example, say everyone
killfiled Godzilla. Who would that leave to point out her garbage? But
looking at the bottom end is easy. What if I were to killfile Uri because I
don't like his tone? Whose ignorance am I furthering: mine or his? It
doesn't mean you have to read every message posted (as you seem to like
extremes), but it does mean you should be more receptive to another's point
of view, even if you don't agree.

And that concludes my philosophy 101 lecture for the day...

Matt

 

[Sherm Pendley]

have you read the rest of the thread that stated how evil was sherm's
answer?

Settle down, Beavis. I've already admitted that I should have included a
caveat or two about taking proper caution when using symrefs & eval.

But hyperbole like "evil" and "horrible" is uncalled-for. That sort of
reaction is better suited to posts like the "delete all your files" posts
we've all seen recently.

sherm--

 

[Eric Schwartz]

You don't seem to understand the difference between force and violence. And
yes, if you try to round everyone up and boycott a bookstore into removing a
book you are using force, the force of numbers. If you quietly killfile
someone, fine. If you declare publicly that all people should killfile
someone (which is all that a plonk message is), you're stating to others
that the person's point of view is wrong. Not because you can refute it,
mind you, but simply because you don't want to hear it.

What if you could refute it, but can't be bothered, because the person
didn't listen the last {30,20,10,5,whatever} times you tried to?
After a while, it becomes counterproductive to respond to everything
an idiot says, and it becomes better to spend one's time on something
else. Killfiles are a useful way of implementing this "spend one's
time on something else" action.

And as for public *plonk*s, sometimes they are useful. It's rare,
I'll concede, but I have seen some people change after being plonked.
Also, I have positively scored several regular contributors to this
newsgroup, such that I read their articles, often before reading the
article they're replying to. If I see a number of people whose
opinions I respect plonk a poster, odds are that I don't want to read
them either (because I've found, over time, that the set of posters
I'm not interested in, and the posters they're not intersted in,
largely intersect).

How you got to this absurd assumption is beyond me. I can't even think of a
way to respond because it's so off-base from anything I wrote. I have no
problem if you don't want to listen to anything I have to say, or anyone
else. What I do have a problem with is ignorance, and a killfile used for
anything but spam is a tool of ignorance.

No. They've been quiet of late, but clpm has a number of resident
trolls, as does any reasonably large newsgroup. It's not ignorance
that causes me to ignore Godzilla/Purl Gurl/Whatever she's calling
herself this week, it's knowing that every time I read her articles, I
find myself playing right into her hands-- getting upset, writing long
articles explaining in-depth why she's wrong, and so on. The problem
is, these articles are useless, because she isn't interested in
debate, or in learning, or in normal human conversational intercourse.

As a result, I killfile her (actually, I score her way down, but
enough that I can still see if she's involved in a thread, so I know
to ignore the whole thing). I'm baffled as to how you can imagine
that's based on ignorance-- if anything, it's based on too much knowledge.

And that's my whole point. Again without mentioning spam, how would you
justify ignoring anything someone posts simply because of their name? (or
email, or fake email, as the case may be)

Because over time, some people have proved they don't have anything to
say I want to hear. And I am not obligated either morally or
technically to read anyone's postings if I don't want to.

As a simple example, say everyone
killfiled Godzilla. Who would that leave to point out her garbage?

She would eventually go away, because nobody would play with her, a
concept which I wish more people would grasp. Besides, I do not view
it as incumbent upon me to do so-- my objective when reading clpm, and
Usenet in general, is to extract from it information that is useful to
me, and to discuss things I find interesting. Responding to trolls
just gets me upset, and does nothing to stop them. And I have yet to
see anything useful spew from that particular orifice.

But looking at the bottom end is easy. What if I were to killfile
Uri because I don't like his tone? Whose ignorance am I furthering:
mine or his?

Who cares? If every time you read a message from Uri, you wanted to
smack him upside the head (a sentiment I am NOT attributing to you),
after a while, you might get tired of feeling that way. I'm not in
the slightest bit interested in whether or not you read his postings
because, so far, your tastes haven't proven to match mine.

It doesn't mean you have to read every message posted
(as you seem to like extremes), but it does mean you should be more
receptive to another's point of view, even if you don't agree.

That's nuts. I don't have to be receptive to anyone's point of view
if that point of view is stupid. Most people's POV isn't, and I don't
killfile most people. But other people have other reasons for that
sort of thing, and more power to them.

And that concludes my philosophy 101 lecture for the day...

Good for you. Now, can we get back to Perl?

-=Eric

 

[Ben Morrow]

The whole idea of a killfile for anything but spam is a bit draconian, don't
you think? I've never bothered to killfile anyone on usenet, because not
liking what someone says isn't justification for turning a blind eye to
them. It seems like a bit of neo-McCarthyism, where you hope to drown out
dissent by force. You don't agree with me, say so. I have more respect for
someone who argues an alternate position than for someone who writes a silly
*plonk* message. (I just felt like ranting about killfiles, by the way, so
don't take anything I've written as being a comment on you or your post.)

I basically sympathise with what you are saying (certainly more than
anyone else who has responded to date . There is a big difference
between ignoring people and trying to prevent them from talking at
all; but anyone who claims to be rational should actively seek out
points of view different from their own, that they can re-evaluate
their reasons for thinking what they do.

My only reason for plonking (other than spam, and I count purlgurl as
spam) is rudeness. THe same applies in real life: I would not take to
avoiding someone because I disagreed with them, but I would if I
considered them to be unpleasant (Do not take this personally!). I
think that a public plonk serves some purpose then: you are saying
'You are not someone I wish to converse with, because you do not
behave in a way I consider acceptable'. A general *plonk* from the
group as a whole should make it clear to that person that they need to
rethink how they act.

In the current case, I was angry at what I saw as gratuitous rudeness,
and thus should not have posted... .

Oh, and McCarthy would have branded you all pinko commies for using Perl

I think McCarthy would have quite a few reasons before he got as far
as my using Perl...

Ben

 

[Tad McClellan]

I just felt like ranting about killfiles,

That added a lot of value.

 

[Uri Guttman]

SP> Settle down, Beavis. I've already admitted that I should have
SP> included a caveat or two about taking proper caution when using
SP> symrefs & eval.

i would rather be beavis than butthead.

SP> But hyperbole like "evil" and "horrible" is uncalled-for. That
SP> sort of reaction is better suited to posts like the "delete all
SP> your files" posts we've all seen recently.

it isn't hyperbole. think about a kid who try to touch the pot of
boiling water. do you kindly explain it even though he barely
understands what he did wrong? newbies don't know why that is evil so
telling them to not do it should be done loudly.

but notice the OP still has not acknowledged anything but your post. so
my yelling at you has a second purpose. hopefully you won't jump in and
tell newbies about symrefs/eval again (or at least with major
caveats). sorry if your feelings were hurt but that is the way of life
sometimes. you did the wrong thing and got slapped for it. have you
been reading this group for a while? if so you would have learned that
those solutions are frowned upon here.

now grow up and stop whinging. calling something evil (like bill gates)
can be the right thing. what the trol did with rm -rf / was less than
evil but stupid and malicious. methinks butthead would even know the
difference between being malicious and plain yelling.

uri

 

[Uri Guttman]

BM> My only reason for plonking (other than spam, and I count purlgurl as
BM> spam) is rudeness.

do utter the name of she who must not be named. we seem to be in our
annual dec/jan vacation so let us enjoy it and hope this is a permanent
vacation.

uri

 

[Uri Guttman]

UG> do utter the name of she who must not be named. we seem to be in our
^not
UG> annual dec/jan vacation so let us enjoy it and hope this is a permanent
UG> vacation.

what a missing word!

uri

 

[David K. Wall]

Just to prevent any misunderstandings: I've no doubt that you have
that "sufficient knowledge and experience". The only reason why I said
so was to preclude myself from the potential contributors. ;-)

It occurred to me just now that my earlier followup might also be
misinterpreted -- as being sarcastic. I think smileys are a bit of a crutch
and have been trying to eliminate the most egregious uses of them from my
writing. But if you added a smiley after each sentence to my earlier response
to the above it would not be out of place.

ObPerl: $last_followup =~ s/(\w+\.)(\s+)/$1 $2/g;

 

[Sherm Pendley]

it isn't hyperbole. think about a kid who try to touch the pot of
boiling water.

That's ridiculous. We're talking about adults, not children, and we're
talking about Perl, not something that will cause real-world physical
injuries. Get a grip.

Few adults will respond positively to an elitist, condescending attitude.
If a stranger on the street asks me for directions to the nearest liquor
store, I give them directions, not a sermon on the evils of drinking. Do I
do that because I think alcohol is good for you? No, I do it because I
know that most people are responsible adults who don't need the sermon -
and and quite a few would be offended by it.

A sermon, whether it's about alcohol or symrefs, will usually be ignored
by those who most need it. If this question comes up again, I intend to
suggest a dispatch table as the safest option, but I will also mention
symrefs and eval, along with the appropriate caveat that using them means
trading away safety in return for flexibility. Programming is full of
trade-offs - this is simply another one.

What I won't do is go over the top and characterize anything as "evil" or
"horrible" simply because it isn't as safe or easy. That sort of hyperbole
is unnecessary and counter-productive. Anyone who would be unwilling to
listen to reasonable advice will be even more unwilling to listen to a
sermon. Worse, the sermon runs the risk of alienating those who might
otherwise have been willing to listen.

You can dismiss this as whining if you want, but I don't mean it that way.
Speaking for myself, I've been reading and posting to usenet for a good
number of years, and I'm able to separate the message from the messenger.
But that's me - the newbies you're trying to help are, almost by
definition, less likely to have developed such thickened skins. It can be
entertaining to play the role of "Grumpy Guru," but I have serious doubts
about whether it's the most effective means of getting people to heed your
advice.

sherm--

 

[Matt Garrish]

My only reason for plonking (other than spam, and I count purlgurl as
spam) is rudeness.

I agree with you completely, but I'll just add that I respond to people in a
manner befitting their attitude. And trolling is a form of spam, but it's
amusing how it's usually the people who say "don't feed the trolls" who are
the first to start baiting the trolls when they appear... : )

Matt

 

[Matt Garrish]

That added a lot of value.

Go back to Russia! : )

Matt