perl should be improved and perl6

[Mark Seger]

Jürgen wrote:
) True, but correct spelling sure helps the readers. I for my part assumed
) he meant "I should of course said" or something along that line. Missing
) a word is a more frequent typo than replacing it with another word.

Maybe you would be interested to know 'should of' is a typo that is most
often made by native English speakers, because it is fonetically close to
'should have'.


SaSW, Willem

I wonder what these guys would have to say about this conversation:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/29/on_the_road_looking_for_typos/
-mark

 

[Gordon Etly]

North Rhine-Westfalia. Why should that matter? And what about people
who come from countries that don't have states because they are not
federations?

Ok, how about "place", or "locale" or whatever you want? Why is this so
important to you? To sway attention away from the central topic of this
(sub) thread?

It is very uncommon in English classes and surely marked as a mistake.
Therefore it shouldn't come as a surprise that the vast majority of
people won't understand it.

This is just untrue. It is a common variation in general speech - speech
that doesn't necessarily follow English grammar rules to the letter, but
I don't understand why you pretend this is something suddenly new in the
world?

 

[John Bokma]

Depends what state you're from "should have"/"should've" is more
proper of course, but it's not terribly uncommon to see people using
"should of". Either way I never saw a sign saying one must use 100%
proper grammar.

*hears Purlgurl cry, because she has just lost her trolling award*

 

[Gordon Etly]

"should of" is wrong. It's at least as wrong than PERL.

Except that "PERL" is defined in it's own documentation, and that's the
whole issue; that it should not be wrong to use "PERL" (if used as a
short for what 'perldoc perl' describes in the NAME line.)

Sadly, while using "should of" is 100% incorrect, lots of
undereducated Americans believe that's the correct usage.

Not necessarily undereducated, although that is a problem in general.
The usage of such (improper) language is more of a casual thing than
simply an undereducated thing.

common usage (PERL/ "should of") does not imply *correct* usage,
no matter how you choose to justify the common use.

Except that "PERL" is defined by the primary document, 'perldoc perl',
which has been the whole point, and what makes the difference.

Also, this isn't an English newsgroup, so what does it matter if one
doesn't always use perfect English. It's not uncommon to have such
misuse of language rub-off sometimes, mainly from the common usage in
general.

Either way, I don't think such an argument of grammar really has any
place here.

 

[Gordon Etly]

*hears Purlgurl cry, because she has just lost her trolling award*

So counter points as they come in makes one a troll now? Do you really
consider it to be so terrible to look at something you feel you know so
well in a different way? Why should it be a taboo to even discuss
something like the usage of "PERL"?

I have maintained the stance that 'perldoc perl' defines it, some people
threw in their two cents, I countered the points, but it seems no one
really addressed the fact the "PERL" is defined (expanded) in 'perldoc
perl' and has stated concretely why "PERL" should not be used, given how
the document defines it's meaning (or at least could be interpreted as
such.)

Lastly, no one is forced to read anything, in any news group or forum
alike, so why are some people so worried as to how far a thread goes on?

 

[Tad J McClellan]

Pffft.


*hears Purlgurl cry, because she has just lost her trolling award*

^^^^
^^^^

Errr, it's been quite some time...


http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.perl.misc/msg/8433edf143698a4d

 

[Gordon Etly]

^^^^
^^^^

Errr, it's been quite some time...



http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.perl.misc/msg/8433edf143698a4d

Opening this link reveals a list of email addresses and ipaddresses, but
how can anyone be certain of how anything on this list actually
connects? Scrolling down shows that much of it is based on typos of
certain phrases. Can you really say this is a viable means of matching
people?

To me, this is like having an unchecked greedy '.*' or '.+' quantifier
in a regex, matching much more than one intended or expected. Further,
the scope of the search seems incredibly arbitrary; It's like saying
everyone who dressed a certain way from time A to time B, because they
dressed similarly, are all affiliated with one another.


To re-hash, I made the point that Perl's documentation gives a meaning
for each letter the name in the language, and a common way of shortening
that would be to write "PERL", would it not? In return, anyone who
agreed with my comments was painted by you and others, who appear to be
aligned with you, as being the work of one person, without one shred of
evidence to backup such claims, so thus, boiling down to little more
than personal attacks from the discontent.


The ironic thing is, given how one, "Purl Gurl", was brought up. Did she
not attempt to lump you all into one single entity with the name
"Frank"? And here you and others go, doing the exact same thing to other
people. And of course it is you who are the better person, right?

And I've yet to see anyone truly state why it is wrong to use "PERL"
given the definition of those letters in 'perldoc perl', and I some how
I doubt one will come from you, but if you or others would feel so
inclined, than I welcome a civilized discussion. If not, you have the
freedom to ignore this thread.

 

[Jim Cochrane]

North Rhine-Westfalia. Why should that matter? And what about people who
come from countries that don't have states because they are not
federations?


It is very uncommon in English classes and surely marked as a mistake.
Therefore it shouldn't come as a surprise that the vast majority of
people won't understand it.


True, but correct spelling sure helps the readers. I for my part assumed
he meant "I should of course said" or something along that line. Missing
a word is a more frequent typo than replacing it with another word.

Actually, "I should of course said" is still wrong - missing a verb
component - should be: "I should of course have said".


--

 

[Jim Cochrane]

I wonder what these guys would have to say about this conversation:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/29/on_the_road_looking_for_typos/
-mark

I heard about those guys on a news segment last week. They've got a
__lot__ of work ahead of them. If they switch media to blogs, wikis,
newsgroups, and other internet media, their work load will be almost
infinite.

--

 

[Jim Cochrane]

"should of" is wrong. It's at least as wrong than PERL.


Sadly, while using "should of" is 100% incorrect, lots of undereducated
Americans believe that's the correct usage. This is a lot like the
way-too-long argument going on in this thread: common usage (PERL/
"should of") does not imply *correct* usage, no matter how you choose to
justify the common use.

And, unfortunately, they also believe the following are correct:

- it's instead of its
- its instead of it's
- your instead of you're
- there instead of their
- i.e. (that is) instead of e.g. (for example) [as in: "Evidence of global
warming has become very prevalent lately; i.e., the average
temperature in the region the past year has been 2 degrees above
normal based on data from the past 50 years."]

etc...

And the worst offenders are very often (probably most often) native
English speakers.


--

 

[Dr.Ruud]

Keith Keller schreef:

"should of" is wrong. It's at least as wrong than PERL.

Aaargh, "as wrong than", I hate that one too much.

BTW, "wronger as" actually has a historical justification, but "as wrong
than" is its evil twin.

 

[Jim Cochrane]

I think that sentence is also better for a little appropriate punctuation:
"I should, of course, have said". The commas also help guide you to the
correct verb choice, instead of getting confused as to whether "of" is your
verb.

Yes, I thought of that after posting; thanks for the correction.

(I better stop replying now before we get too far sidetracked from perl
vs. Perl vs. PERL vs. pERL .......)


--

 

[Tad J McClellan]

Ugh--when I correct grammar, next time I won't make a grammar mistake.
I had written "It's even more wrong than PERL" and did
s/even more/at least as/ but forgot to do s/than/as/.

But, really, perl should be improved to do this for me automagically!

The "WWIM" capability will be added in perl8.

 

[Martijn Lievaart]

I believe it is germane to the issue.

Sorry, but no, that was never the issuer at hand, but rather a tangent
off the issue.

I think it is your opinion, not a "fact", that your conclusion flows
from your premise.

'perldoc perl' is not my opinion.

It states "Practical Extraction and Report Language" and therefore I
don't know why it should be considered wrong to use "PERL" as a short
for that, which it very well is.

[...]

Well if you just snip the arguments without addressing them, I guess
there is no arguing possible.

M4

 

[Andrew DeFaria]

Also, his appearance in this NG at the same time as this stupid
argument is a really amazing coincidence.

This is the justification for 99.999% of all conspiracy theories. Oh,
and I don't believe them either.