Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Perl: porters

Perl secret operators manual page

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Perl porters RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


philippe.bruhat at free

Apr 2, 2012, 1:25 AM

Post #1 of 55 (874 views)
Permalink
Perl secret operators manual page

Hi,

After some work on github, I have pushed (during the Perl QA Hackathon
in Paris) a book/perlsecret branch that contains a new manual page
(perlsecret.pod, not referenced in the main perl.pod) and a new test
script (secret.t, under t/japh, so that it's only run during torturetest).

Thanks for considering it for inclusion in a future Perl release.

--
Philippe Bruhat (BooK)

When you open a new door, the bad comes in with the good.
(Moral from Groo The Wanderer #102 (Epic))


philippe.bruhat at free

May 23, 2012, 7:30 AM

Post #2 of 55 (848 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 10:25:39AM +0200, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
>
> After some work on github, I have pushed (during the Perl QA Hackathon
> in Paris) a book/perlsecret branch that contains a new manual page
> (perlsecret.pod, not referenced in the main perl.pod) and a new test
> script (secret.t, under t/japh, so that it's only run during torturetest).
>
> Thanks for considering it for inclusion in a future Perl release.
>

Now that 5.16 is out, I'd like to discuss the inclusion of this minor
(and hidden) addition to the Perl documentation.

--
Philippe Bruhat (BooK)

The more destruction we spread, the more we destroy ourselves.
(Moral from Groo #12 (Image))


dmcbride at cpan

May 23, 2012, 9:33 AM

Post #3 of 55 (835 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

On Wednesday May 23 2012 4:30:35 PM Philippe Bruhat wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 10:25:39AM +0200, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
> > After some work on github, I have pushed (during the Perl QA Hackathon
> > in Paris) a book/perlsecret branch that contains a new manual page
> > (perlsecret.pod, not referenced in the main perl.pod) and a new test
> > script (secret.t, under t/japh, so that it's only run during torturetest).
> >
> > Thanks for considering it for inclusion in a future Perl release.
>
> Now that 5.16 is out, I'd like to discuss the inclusion of this minor
> (and hidden) addition to the Perl documentation.

It'd be nice to have it all in one place, but I'd like to make a couple of
(minor?) suggestions:

1. Label the "secret" operators that are encouraged (Venus, Bang bang, Eskimo
greeting, and maybe Babycart, I think) to distinguish them from the "obscure
to the uninitiated".

I get this is a judgement call, and exactly which ones get "acceptable" status
is open to interpretation, but our docs already detail suggestions on
readability, maintainability, etc., so I think such suggestion is valid here,
too.

2. I know what =()= is normally called. But as soon as you put "don't google
this", you know what's going to happen. At a bare (no pun intended) minimum,
it should be labelled as Not Safe For Work. I would prefer that for official-
like documentation, we simply avoid it altogether. The "Saturn" moniker is
better anyway, could we just use that here?
Attachments: signature.asc (0.19 KB)


friedberg at exs

May 23, 2012, 9:42 AM

Post #4 of 55 (832 views)
Permalink
RE: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

Of course, I had to try:

From the Moog synthesizer home page using chrome
on windows:

Your search - =()= - did not match any documents.




-----Original Message-----
[>] ...2. I know what =()= is normally called. But as soon as you put "don't google
this", you know what's going to happen. At a bare (no pun intended) minimum,
it should be labelled as Not Safe For Work. I would prefer that for official-
like documentation, we simply avoid it altogether. The "Saturn" moniker is
better anyway, could we just use that here?


autarch at urth

May 23, 2012, 9:58 AM

Post #5 of 55 (839 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

On Wed, 23 May 2012, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 10:25:39AM +0200, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
>>
>> After some work on github, I have pushed (during the Perl QA Hackathon
>> in Paris) a book/perlsecret branch that contains a new manual page
>> (perlsecret.pod, not referenced in the main perl.pod) and a new test
>> script (secret.t, under t/japh, so that it's only run during torturetest).
>>
>> Thanks for considering it for inclusion in a future Perl release.
>>
>
> Now that 5.16 is out, I'd like to discuss the inclusion of this minor
> (and hidden) addition to the Perl documentation.

At the risk of starting an insane flamewar ...

The "Eskimo kissing" label for "}{" seems entirely inappropriate.
Apparently the whole "Eskimo kissing" thing is a non-Inuit
misinterpretation of the meaning of this interaction. It's not erotic, and
it's not two noses pressed together, and it's not something I'd like to
see Perl propogating.

Can we come up with a better name? Maybe just something like "Nose to
Nose"?


-dave

/*============================================================
http://VegGuide.org http://blog.urth.org
Your guide to all that's veg House Absolute(ly Pointless)
============================================================*/


liz at dijkmat

May 23, 2012, 10:30 AM

Post #6 of 55 (832 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

On May 23, 2012, at 6:58 PM, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 10:25:39AM +0200, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
>>>
>>> After some work on github, I have pushed (during the Perl QA Hackathon
>>> in Paris) a book/perlsecret branch that contains a new manual page
>>> (perlsecret.pod, not referenced in the main perl.pod) and a new test
>>> script (secret.t, under t/japh, so that it's only run during torturetest).
>>>
>>> Thanks for considering it for inclusion in a future Perl release.
>>>
>>
>> Now that 5.16 is out, I'd like to discuss the inclusion of this minor
>> (and hidden) addition to the Perl documentation.
>
> At the risk of starting an insane flamewar ...
>
> The "Eskimo kissing" label for "}{" seems entirely inappropriate. Apparently the whole "Eskimo kissing" thing is a non-Inuit misinterpretation of the meaning of this interaction. It's not erotic, and it's not two noses pressed together, and it's not something I'd like to see Perl propogating.
>
> Can we come up with a better name? Maybe just something like "Nose to Nose"?

Nose Nudge?


/me starts running... :-)


Liz


perl.p5p at rjbs

May 23, 2012, 10:44 AM

Post #7 of 55 (829 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

* Dave Rolsky <autarch [at] urth> [2012-05-23T12:58:00]
> At the risk of starting an insane flamewar ...
>
> The "Eskimo kissing" label for "}{" seems entirely inappropriate.
> Apparently the whole "Eskimo kissing" thing is a non-Inuit
> misinterpretation of the meaning of this interaction. It's not
> erotic, and it's not two noses pressed together, and it's not
> something I'd like to see Perl propogating.
>
> Can we come up with a better name? Maybe just something like "Nose
> to Nose"?

The "hidden goblet operator"

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GobletIllusion.html

--
rjbs
Attachments: signature.asc (0.48 KB)


mpeters at plusthree

May 23, 2012, 10:51 AM

Post #8 of 55 (832 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

On 05/23/2012 01:44 PM, Ricardo Signes wrote:

> The "hidden goblet operator"
>
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GobletIllusion.html

Or maybe just "goblet". Or maybe "hour glass" ?

}{

--
Michael Peters
Plus Three, LP


autarch at urth

May 23, 2012, 11:26 AM

Post #9 of 55 (831 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

On Wed, 23 May 2012, Ricardo Signes wrote:

> * Dave Rolsky <autarch [at] urth> [2012-05-23T12:58:00]
>> At the risk of starting an insane flamewar ...
>>
>> The "Eskimo kissing" label for "}{" seems entirely inappropriate.
>> Apparently the whole "Eskimo kissing" thing is a non-Inuit
>> misinterpretation of the meaning of this interaction. It's not
>> erotic, and it's not two noses pressed together, and it's not
>> something I'd like to see Perl propogating.
>>
>> Can we come up with a better name? Maybe just something like "Nose
>> to Nose"?
>
> The "hidden goblet operator"

++ (to this and Hour Glass)


-dave

/*============================================================
http://VegGuide.org http://blog.urth.org
Your guide to all that's veg House Absolute(ly Pointless)
============================================================*/


fawaka at gmail

May 23, 2012, 11:35 AM

Post #10 of 55 (835 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Philippe Bruhat (BooK)
<philippe.bruhat [at] free> wrote:
> After some work on github, I have pushed (during the Perl QA Hackathon
> in Paris) a book/perlsecret branch that contains a new manual page
> (perlsecret.pod, not referenced in the main perl.pod) and a new test
> script (secret.t, under t/japh, so that it's only run during torturetest).
>
> Thanks for considering it for inclusion in a future Perl release.

I'm not really seeing the point of it. Sure it's cute, but does it
really have to be part of core's documentation?

Leon


perl.p5p at rjbs

May 23, 2012, 11:39 AM

Post #11 of 55 (831 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

* "Philippe Bruhat (BooK)" <philippe.bruhat [at] free> [2012-05-23T10:30:35]
> Now that 5.16 is out, I'd like to discuss the inclusion of this minor
> (and hidden) addition to the Perl documentation.

The file can be viewed at
https://github.com/mirrors/perl/blob/book/perlsecret/pod/perlsecret.pod

I am very on-the-fence about this. First off, I'm not including documentation
that makes goatse references or sperm jokes.

This document is one more thing that we'll get patches and bug reports for, but
its only real value is fun, which makes me uncomfortable. Perhaps if it was in
perlfaq, and updating it came as part of regular updates, and maintenance was
non-core, that cost would be basically zero.

I do appreciate a bit of whimsy now and then, though.

So, what I'm wondering is: what's the cost/benefit tradeoff, here?

--
rjbs
Attachments: signature.asc (0.48 KB)


public at khwilliamson

May 23, 2012, 2:55 PM

Post #12 of 55 (830 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

On 05/23/2012 12:39 PM, Ricardo Signes wrote:
> * "Philippe Bruhat (BooK)"<philippe.bruhat [at] free> [2012-05-23T10:30:35]
>> Now that 5.16 is out, I'd like to discuss the inclusion of this minor
>> (and hidden) addition to the Perl documentation.
>
> The file can be viewed at
> https://github.com/mirrors/perl/blob/book/perlsecret/pod/perlsecret.pod
>
> I am very on-the-fence about this. First off, I'm not including documentation
> that makes goatse references or sperm jokes.
>
> This document is one more thing that we'll get patches and bug reports for, but
> its only real value is fun, which makes me uncomfortable. Perhaps if it was in
> perlfaq, and updating it came as part of regular updates, and maintenance was
> non-core, that cost would be basically zero.
>
> I do appreciate a bit of whimsy now and then, though.
>
> So, what I'm wondering is: what's the cost/benefit tradeoff, here?
>

I for one appreciated the document not for its whimsy, but for its
educational value. It clearly lays out some subtleties of the grammar
and semantics that I think would be helpful to someone starting to delve
into the deeper mysteries of Perl.

I think this document ought to be published somewhere findable. It is
not clear to me though if it should be in Perl's core documentation


abigail at abigail

May 23, 2012, 3:27 PM

Post #13 of 55 (837 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:39:44PM -0400, Ricardo Signes wrote:
> * "Philippe Bruhat (BooK)" <philippe.bruhat [at] free> [2012-05-23T10:30:35]
> > Now that 5.16 is out, I'd like to discuss the inclusion of this minor
> > (and hidden) addition to the Perl documentation.
>
> The file can be viewed at
> https://github.com/mirrors/perl/blob/book/perlsecret/pod/perlsecret.pod
>
> I am very on-the-fence about this. First off, I'm not including documentation
> that makes goatse references or sperm jokes.
>
> This document is one more thing that we'll get patches and bug reports for, but
> its only real value is fun, which makes me uncomfortable. Perhaps if it was in
> perlfaq, and updating it came as part of regular updates, and maintenance was
> non-core, that cost would be basically zero.
>
> I do appreciate a bit of whimsy now and then, though.
>
> So, what I'm wondering is: what's the cost/benefit tradeoff, here?


I kinda of liked the idea of the secret operators, until people started to
take offence to the "Eskimo Greeting". That seems the entrance to a spiralling
downwards slope, and now my view is "this is a can of worms that better stay
closed". [1]

CPAN seems like a better place for this.


Abigail

[1] Isn't ironic. We as a Perl community are known to be newbie bashers, and
are often percieved to be rude to contributers, but we seem to be very
sensitive to possible offending anyone not in our own circles...


dmcbride at cpan

May 23, 2012, 3:32 PM

Post #14 of 55 (829 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

On Wednesday May 23 2012 3:55:34 PM Karl Williamson wrote:
> I think this document ought to be published somewhere findable. It is
> not clear to me though if it should be in Perl's core documentation

One upside of core is that we get objections to, well, objectionable material.
I would be loathe to point coworkers at the document if it contained
references to a "goatse" operator. Single-sourced material could be published
somewhere findable, and then it becomes a bit more troublesome to correct.

The second benefit was also in my earlier note: the consensus nature of P5P
also allows for recommendations (and discussions of those recommendations)
similar to perlstyle.
Attachments: signature.asc (0.19 KB)


tony at develop-help

May 23, 2012, 4:07 PM

Post #15 of 55 (831 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 04:30:35PM +0200, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
>
> Now that 5.16 is out, I'd like to discuss the inclusion of this minor
> (and hidden) addition to the Perl documentation.

I don't think it belongs in core, but I don't feel all that strongly
about it.

I can see *some* of thee operators being discussed as in appropriate
places, eg ,=> under perlop/Comma Opererators, =()= as an example in
perlop/Assignment Operators.

Tony


philippe.bruhat at free

May 23, 2012, 5:23 PM

Post #16 of 55 (829 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:39:44PM -0400, Ricardo Signes wrote:
> * "Philippe Bruhat (BooK)" <philippe.bruhat [at] free> [2012-05-23T10:30:35]
> > Now that 5.16 is out, I'd like to discuss the inclusion of this minor
> > (and hidden) addition to the Perl documentation.
>
> The file can be viewed at
> https://github.com/mirrors/perl/blob/book/perlsecret/pod/perlsecret.pod
>
> I am very on-the-fence about this. First off, I'm not including documentation
> that makes goatse references or sperm jokes.

Even if the document is not listed in perl.pod and generated documents like perltoc?

> This document is one more thing that we'll get patches and bug reports for, but
> its only real value is fun, which makes me uncomfortable. Perhaps if it was in
> perlfaq, and updating it came as part of regular updates, and maintenance was
> non-core, that cost would be basically zero.

So you mean make it dual-lived?

> I do appreciate a bit of whimsy now and then, though.
>
> So, what I'm wondering is: what's the cost/benefit tradeoff, here?
>

Cost (or rather, arguments to convice you the cost is minimal):
- I'm willing to do the maintenance work on it.
- I'm not ready to include any random combination of punctuation that
is ascii-artish (I tried to include things that are in wide use, or
at least have been presented at conferences or have some usefulness)
- I agree that having "sperm" and "goatse" in the official documentation
is a very tempting opportunity for get Perl-haters to ridicule it.
I'm ready to remove those terms from the document to get it included.
(and already pushed a patch to that end)

Benefits:
- as mentioned in the thread, some of those operators are well-known
enough that it's nice to have them in one place, with some explanation
of how they work
- it's a serious document, with an matching test script (writing the
test script actually lead to improvement of the document itself),
and a long list of references
- it's fun and educational!

--
Philippe Bruhat (BooK)

There are two sides to every cause. Do not join one until you know the other.
(Moral from Groo The Wanderer #105 (Epic))


philippe.bruhat at free

May 23, 2012, 5:25 PM

Post #17 of 55 (835 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:58:00AM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 10:25:39AM +0200, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
> >>
> >>After some work on github, I have pushed (during the Perl QA Hackathon
> >>in Paris) a book/perlsecret branch that contains a new manual page
> >>(perlsecret.pod, not referenced in the main perl.pod) and a new test
> >>script (secret.t, under t/japh, so that it's only run during torturetest).
> >>
> >>Thanks for considering it for inclusion in a future Perl release.
> >>
> >
> >Now that 5.16 is out, I'd like to discuss the inclusion of this minor
> >(and hidden) addition to the Perl documentation.
>
> At the risk of starting an insane flamewar ...
>
> The "Eskimo kissing" label for "}{" seems entirely inappropriate.

The actual name of the operator is "eskimo greeting", not "eskimo kissing".
So it's doubly wrong, by mis-citing a mis-interpretation. Doesn't that
make it right-ish? ;-)

> Apparently the whole "Eskimo kissing" thing is a non-Inuit
> misinterpretation of the meaning of this interaction. It's not
> erotic, and it's not two noses pressed together, and it's not
> something I'd like to see Perl propogating.
>
> Can we come up with a better name? Maybe just something like "Nose
> to Nose"?

The name is already in wide use (I haven't seen }{ described under any
other nickname until today). What about making things right by explaining
that ethnographers got the kunik wrong, with some references?

--
Philippe Bruhat (BooK)

None suffer so much in a war as those who strive to end it.
(Moral from Groo The Wanderer #51 (Epic))


philippe.bruhat at free

May 23, 2012, 5:27 PM

Post #18 of 55 (845 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 01:51:37PM -0400, Michael Peters wrote:
>
> Or maybe "hour glass" ?
>
> }{
>

Isn't ⌛ a well-known icon for "please wait while this computer is trying
to escape an infinite loop"?

--
Philippe Bruhat (BooK)

There is no solution to a problem of sheer greed.
(Moral from Groo The Wanderer #94 (Epic))


jkeen at verizon

May 23, 2012, 5:29 PM

Post #19 of 55 (831 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

On 5/23/12 2:35 PM, Leon Timmermans wrote:

>
> I'm not really seeing the point of it. Sure it's cute, but does it
> really have to be part of core's documentation?
>

I agree. I don't think it belongs in the core distribution. Perhaps if
it were its own distribution on CPAN we could include a link to it from
perlop.

jimk


richard.foley at rfi

May 24, 2012, 12:01 AM

Post #20 of 55 (831 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

Indeed -} Political Correctness {- rears it's ugly head once more.

--
Ciao

Richard Foley

http://www.rfi.net/books.html

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:27:49AM +0200, Abigail wrote:
>
> [1] Isn't ironic. We as a Perl community are known to be newbie bashers, and
> are often percieved to be rude to contributers, but we seem to be very
> sensitive to possible offending anyone not in our own circles...


liz at dijkmat

May 24, 2012, 12:44 AM

Post #21 of 55 (829 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

On May 24, 2012, at 2:29 AM, James E Keenan wrote:
> On 5/23/12 2:35 PM, Leon Timmermans wrote:
>> I'm not really seeing the point of it. Sure it's cute, but does it
>> really have to be part of core's documentation?
> I agree. I don't think it belongs in the core distribution. Perhaps if it were its own distribution on CPAN we could include a link to it from perlop.

I do think it belongs in the core distribution, just as "perldoc cheat" does. And with a link from perlop, as that would be the place where people would look first to look up documentation on this strange operator they found in someone else's code.



Liz


philippe.bruhat at free

May 24, 2012, 1:01 AM

Post #22 of 55 (832 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 09:44:15AM +0200, Elizabeth Mattijsen wrote:
> On May 24, 2012, at 2:29 AM, James E Keenan wrote:
> > On 5/23/12 2:35 PM, Leon Timmermans wrote:
> >> I'm not really seeing the point of it. Sure it's cute, but does it
> >> really have to be part of core's documentation?
> > I agree. I don't think it belongs in the core distribution. Perhaps if it were its own distribution on CPAN we could include a link to it from perlop.
>
> I do think it belongs in the core distribution, just as "perldoc
> cheat" does. And with a link from perlop, as that would be the place
> where people would look first to look up documentation on this strange
> operator they found in someone else's code.
>

I'm not sure about providing a link from perlop. I think of it more like
an "easter egg", a little nugget of sugar or chocolate that people have
to look for or to be pointed to. Hidden, sweet and nutricious.

--
Philippe Bruhat (BooK)

A little work with your brain can save you a lot of work with your body.
(Moral from Groo The Wanderer #40 (Epic))


pagaltzis at gmx

May 24, 2012, 2:17 AM

Post #23 of 55 (830 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

* Philippe Bruhat (BooK) <philippe.bruhat [at] free> [2012-05-24 02:30]:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:58:00AM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> > Can we come up with a better name? Maybe just something like "Nose
> > to Nose"?
>
> The name is already in wide use (I haven't seen }{ described under any
> other nickname until today). What about making things right by
> explaining that ethnographers got the kunik wrong, with some
> references?

Yes please.

However mistaken the anthropological interpretation of the interaction
after which the operator was named – the Rorschach interpretation of the
inverted curly bracket as a picture of two faces opposite one another
touching noses is perfect, once it has been pointed it is very difficult
not to see it every time you look at the operator.

And the name has successfully me(me)tastasised for that reason. So on
descriptivist grounds the “wrong” name has to be mentioned. “Hourglass”
is an apt interpretation of the visual also, but it can only be listed
as an alternative.

I see no reason not to add a note to point out the anthropological error
however. It might even contribute just a little to a wider awareness.

Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>


ss5 at renormalist

May 24, 2012, 12:38 PM

Post #24 of 55 (831 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

Ricardo Signes <perl.p5p [at] rjbs> writes:
> * "Philippe Bruhat (BooK)" <philippe.bruhat [at] free> [2012-05-23T10:30:35]
>> Now that 5.16 is out, I'd like to discuss the inclusion of this minor
>> (and hidden) addition to the Perl documentation.
>
> The file can be viewed at
> https://github.com/mirrors/perl/blob/book/perlsecret/pod/perlsecret.pod

My 2¢;

If they get into core documentation they should be checked for their
potential deprecation affinity. Me thinks of the discussion with “:=”
and empty attributes.

It would be a pity to explicitely make them "official" first and have
them somewhere in the way later.

Kind regards,
Steffen
--
Steffen Schwigon <ss5 [at] renormalist>
Dresden Perl Mongers <http://dresden-pm.org/>


shlomif at shlomifish

May 25, 2012, 10:37 AM

Post #25 of 55 (837 views)
Permalink
Re: Perl secret operators manual page [In reply to]

Hi,

On Thu, 24 May 2012 09:07:22 +1000
Tony Cook <tony [at] develop-help> wrote:

> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 04:30:35PM +0200, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:
> >
> > Now that 5.16 is out, I'd like to discuss the inclusion of this minor
> > (and hidden) addition to the Perl documentation.
>
> I don't think it belongs in core, but I don't feel all that strongly
> about it.
>

Same here. +1.

Regards,

Shlomi Fish

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
Rethinking CPAN - http://shlom.in/rethinking-cpan

Sisko: Q: would it be OK if my crew brought along their phasers with them?

Q: Of course. They can also bring some photon torpedoes if they wish. None of
them will work, but I don’t mind them taking them.

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Perl porters RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.