Can't get group to match - please help

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by jack@yankeeboysoftware.com, Nov 7, 2005.

  1. Guest

    This seemingly simple regex is causing me problems

    my $test = "Pub LOC.REC.USEIB03375MAR09.mngref0 #010C9D94";
    my ($res) = ($test =~ /Pub (\w+{\.\w+})\s#.*/);
    if( $res ){
    print "\n$res\n";
    }


    The problem is to extract the "LOC.REC.USEIB03375MAR09.mngref0" part of
    the string, which may have three to six parts - so it could be
    LOC.REC.USEIB03375MAR09 or it could be
    LOC.REC.USEIB03375MAR09.mngref0.day9.test


    What am I doing wrong ??
     
    , Nov 7, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Anno Siegel Guest

    <> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
    > This seemingly simple regex is causing me problems
    >
    > my $test = "Pub LOC.REC.USEIB03375MAR09.mngref0 #010C9D94";
    > my ($res) = ($test =~ /Pub (\w+{\.\w+})\s#.*/);
    > if( $res ){
    > print "\n$res\n";
    > }
    >
    >
    > The problem is to extract the "LOC.REC.USEIB03375MAR09.mngref0" part of
    > the string, which may have three to six parts - so it could be
    > LOC.REC.USEIB03375MAR09 or it could be
    > LOC.REC.USEIB03375MAR09.mngref0.day9.test
    >
    >
    > What am I doing wrong ??


    Hard to say. I don't really see what parts of your regex you expect
    what parts of the string to match. For a start, your regex tries to
    match a "{" and later a "}", but neither are in your string.

    Anno
    --
    If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
    the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
    "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
    "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.
     
    Anno Siegel, Nov 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    OK, I realise that I completely misinterpreted what the '{' and '}' are
    for.

    So, how do I indicate that I am interested in 1 or more "\.\w"
    occurances ?

    In other words, how do I get the '+' to apply to a - dot '\.' -
    followed by a word '\w+'

    How do I treat '\.' and '\w' as a single unit ?
     
    , Nov 7, 2005
    #3
  4. Anno Siegel Guest

    <> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:

    [no context, no attribution]

    > OK, I realise that I completely misinterpreted what the '{' and '}' are
    > for.
    >
    > So, how do I indicate that I am interested in 1 or more "\.\w"
    > occurances ?


    As far as I remember, you aren't interested in that but in one or
    more groups /\.\w+/.

    Anyway, read up on regular expressions, especially about the '+'
    quantifier.

    > In other words, how do I get the '+' to apply to a - dot '\.' -
    > followed by a word '\w+'
    >
    > How do I treat '\.' and '\w' as a single unit ?


    They are. For larger groups, see non-capturing groups and/or non-capturing
    parentheses in perlre.

    Anno
    --
    If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
    the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
    "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
    "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.
     
    Anno Siegel, Nov 7, 2005
    #4
  5. Guest

    Actually, the simple answer to my question would have been:

    Read about the use of parenthesis without triggering memory, in other
    words /(?:expression)/

    So the solution to my problem is

    my $test = "Pub LOC.REC.USEIB03375MAR09.mngref0 #010C9D94";
    my ($res) = ($test =~ /Pub (\w+(?:\.\w+)+)\s#.*/);
    if( $res ){
    print "\n$res\n";
    }

    Of course the fact that it took re-reading the same section of the perl
    documentation about ten times to notice it is my fault.
     
    , Nov 7, 2005
    #5
  6. Anno Siegel Guest

    <> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:

    [no attribution, no context, again]

    You're showing a learning rate of zero. Please learn how to post
    properly.

    > Actually, the simple answer to my question would have been:
    >
    > Read about the use of parenthesis without triggering memory, in other
    > words /(?:expression)/


    Yes, I've given that answer (you snipped it):

    >> ... For larger groups, see non-capturing groups and/or non-capturing
    >> parentheses in perlre.


    What are you going on about?

    Anno
    --
    If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
    the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
    "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
    "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.
     
    Anno Siegel, Nov 7, 2005
    #6
  7. Guest

    >> [no attribution, no context, again]

    Well, Thank you, I guess ?!?!?

    >>You're showing a learning rate of zero.

    How strange you should say that, I've already learned to not like you.

    >>Please learn how to post properly.

    Oh, great wise sage of comp.lang.perl.misc please help me to gain the
    requisite knowledge

    >>>> Read about the use of parenthesis without triggering memory, in other
    >>>> words /(?:expression)/


    >> Yes, I've given that answer (you snipped it):


    I find this to be a very strange conversation. You claim to have given
    me the answer, yet when I review your first two postings neither
    contains /(?:expression)/

    >>What are you going on about?

    Your lack of helpfulness, and asinine attitude
     
    , Nov 7, 2005
    #7
  8. wrote in
    news::

    >> -berlin.de (Anno Siegel) wrote in
    >> news:dkngqa$b3n$-Berlin.DE:
    >>
    >>> [no attribution, no context, again]

    >
    > Well, Thank you, I guess ?!?!?


    You should have thanked Anno, learned from your mistake, and moved on.

    ....

    >>>What are you going on about?


    > Your lack of helpfulness, and asinine attitude


    Don't consider the lack of response from others in this group to be a
    tacit approval of your style. Anno was the only person who took time to
    try to help. After your responses, I do not think that number is going
    to go up substantially.

    Bye.

    Sinan

    --
    A. Sinan Unur <>
    (reverse each component and remove .invalid for email address)

    comp.lang.perl.misc guidelines on the WWW:
    http://mail.augustmail.com/~tadmc/clpmisc/clpmisc_guidelines.html
     
    A. Sinan Unur, Nov 7, 2005
    #8
  9. Anno Siegel Guest

    <> wrote in comp.lang.perl.misc:
    > >> [no attribution, no context, again]

    >
    > Well, Thank you, I guess ?!?!?
    >
    > >>You're showing a learning rate of zero.

    > How strange you should say that, I've already learned to not like you.
    >
    > >>Please learn how to post properly.

    > Oh, great wise sage of comp.lang.perl.misc please help me to gain the
    > requisite knowledge


    Read the posting guidelines. They appear here regularly.

    > >>>> Read about the use of parenthesis without triggering memory, in other
    > >>>> words /(?:expression)/

    >
    > >> Yes, I've given that answer (you snipped it):

    >
    > I find this to be a very strange conversation. You claim to have given
    > me the answer, yet when I review your first two postings neither
    > contains /(?:expression)/


    Right, they *deliberately* don't contain that. They do contain the words
    "non-capturing group". Learn to read for comprehension.

    > >>What are you going on about?

    > Your lack of helpfulness, and asinine attitude


    My lack of helpfulness reflects your inability or unwillingness to
    conduct a coherent Usenet conversation. What you think about that
    is of little concern.

    Anno
    --
    If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
    the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
    "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
    "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers.
     
    Anno Siegel, Nov 7, 2005
    #9
  10. Paul Lalli Guest

    wrote:
    > >> [no attribution, no context, again]

    >
    > Well, Thank you, I guess ?!?!?


    Do you see four lines up? Where it says "
    wrote:"? That's an attribution. That has been the custom and
    tradition in Usenet for decades. That's one of the things you keep
    snipping.

    Do you see three lines below that? Where it says "> Well, Thank you, I
    guess ?!?!?"? That's context. That lets people reading this message
    know what I'm replying to. That also has been custom and tradition for
    decades. That's the other thing you keep snipping. Apologize, correct
    yourself, and move on.

    > >>You're showing a learning rate of zero.

    > How strange you should say that, I've already learned to not like you.


    How very foolish of you.

    > >>Please learn how to post properly.

    > Oh, great wise sage of comp.lang.perl.misc please help me to gain the
    > requisite knowledge


    It requires neither greatness nor wisdom to read the posting guidelines
    that are posted to this group twice a week, every week. Go. Read
    them.

    > >>>> Read about the use of parenthesis without triggering memory, in other
    > >>>> words /(?:expression)/

    >
    > >> Yes, I've given that answer (you snipped it):

    >
    > I find this to be a very strange conversation. You claim to have given
    > me the answer, yet when I review your first two postings neither
    > contains /(?:expression)/


    I find it fascinating that in reply to the Anno's telling you that you
    snipped his answer, you snipped it again, and then claimed that he
    never gave it to you. He said:

    >>>> ... For larger groups, see non-capturing groups and/or non-capturing
    >>>> parentheses in perlre.


    That *is* the answer. Or were you upset that he did not hand feed you
    the solution, that he did not say "Put your expression inside a (?: )
    construct, because this is a non-capturing parenthesized group"? He
    directed you to the exact phrase to look for in the exact document to
    read. You are upset that he told you how and where to fish, rather
    than gave you one?

    > >>What are you going on about?

    > Your lack of helpfulness, and asinine attitude


    He has been very helpful, both in this thread, and in countless others.
    Yours is sadly the only asinine attitude on display here.

    Paul Lalli
     
    Paul Lalli, Nov 7, 2005
    #10
  11. Guest

    Paul Lalli wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > >> [no attribution, no context, again]

    > >
    > > Well, Thank you, I guess ?!?!?

    >
    > Do you see four lines up? Where it says "
    > wrote:"? That's an attribution. That has been the custom and
    > tradition in Usenet for decades. That's one of the things you keep
    > snipping.


    Well, I've been reading, posting questions and answering quesitons in
    news groups 'for decades' and this is the *first* thread I have ever
    been involved with where someone has ever commented upon that. I guess
    it really is always September..

    >
    > Do you see three lines below that? Where it says "> Well, Thank you, I
    > guess ?!?!?"? That's context. That lets people reading this message
    > know what I'm replying to. That also has been custom and tradition for
    > decades. That's the other thing you keep snipping. Apologize, correct
    > yourself, and move on.


    You want me to apologize for having someone tell me that I have a
    learning rate of zero ? That was meant as an insult, whether it is
    true or not.

    >
    > > >>You're showing a learning rate of zero.

    > > How strange you should say that, I've already learned to not like you.

    >
    > How very foolish of you.


    Perhaps, but a very predicatble and understandable reaction to be
    insulted.

    >
    > > >>Please learn how to post properly.

    > > Oh, great wise sage of comp.lang.perl.misc please help me to gain the
    > > requisite knowledge

    >
    > It requires neither greatness nor wisdom to read the posting guidelines
    > that are posted to this group twice a week, every week. Go. Read
    > them.


    Gosh, I didn't realise that it was a requirement to read and obey all
    the posting guidelines. Actually it's quite odd - I had no idea such
    guidlines existed - but now after having read them I'm sure I recall
    something about "...poster is unaware ...".
    >
    > > >>>> Read about the use of parenthesis without triggering memory, in other
    > > >>>> words /(?:expression)/

    > >
    > > >> Yes, I've given that answer (you snipped it):

    > >
    > > I find this to be a very strange conversation. You claim to have given
    > > me the answer, yet when I review your first two postings neither
    > > contains /(?:expression)/

    >
    > I find it fascinating that in reply to the Anno's telling you that you
    > snipped his answer, you snipped it again, and then claimed that he
    > never gave it to you. He said:
    >
    > >>>> ... For larger groups, see non-capturing groups and/or non-capturing
    > >>>> parentheses in perlre.

    >
    > That *is* the answer. Or were you upset that he did not hand feed you
    > the solution, that he did not say "Put your expression inside a (?: )
    > construct, because this is a non-capturing parenthesized group"? He
    > directed you to the exact phrase to look for in the exact document to
    > read. You are upset that he told you how and where to fish, rather
    > than gave you one?


    Actually I wasn't upset, just confused, as I imagine many newbies to
    perl would be when encountering this:
    >>... For larger groups, see non-capturing groups and/or non-capturing parentheses in perlre.


    as opposed to, say:

    See: /(?:expression)/

    or perhaps:

    You can group terms with a /(?:terms)/ - note the ? and : characters
    within the parentheses. see the documentation entitled "non-capturing
    groups" or "non-capturing parentheses"

    This would explain the use of the relatively technical term '
    non-capturing', which I might not be familiar with (and in fact I
    wasn't - so unfamiliar was I that it didn't even register as a
    technical term, so unfamiliar I didn't realise that 'perlre' was a
    document reference, rather I guessed it was a typo, and as a result
    couldn't figure out what the suggestion meant at all. )
    >
    > > >>What are you going on about?

    > > Your lack of helpfulness, and asinine attitude

    >
    > He has been very helpful, both in this thread, and in countless others.
    > Yours is sadly the only asinine attitude on display here.
    >
    > Paul Lalli


    Perhaps, but In my opinion his superiority complex got the better of
    him this time., and I have noticed it in other posts of his within this
    group as well.
     
    , Nov 7, 2005
    #11
  12. Paul Lalli Guest

    wrote:
    > Paul Lalli wrote:
    > > wrote:
    > > Do you see three lines below that? Where it says "> Well, Thank you, I
    > > guess ?!?!?"? That's context. That lets people reading this message
    > > know what I'm replying to. That also has been custom and tradition for
    > > decades. That's the other thing you keep snipping. Apologize, correct
    > > yourself, and move on.

    >
    > You want me to apologize for having someone tell me that I have a
    > learning rate of zero ?


    No, I want you to apologize to anyone else reading these messages for
    making it harder to follow the thread, by not quoting context, and by
    not attributing.

    > > > >>Please learn how to post properly.
    > > > Oh, great wise sage of comp.lang.perl.misc please help me to gain the
    > > > requisite knowledge

    > >
    > > It requires neither greatness nor wisdom to read the posting guidelines
    > > that are posted to this group twice a week, every week. Go. Read
    > > them.

    >
    > Gosh, I didn't realise that it was a requirement to read and obey all
    > the posting guidelines. Actually it's quite odd - I had no idea such
    > guidlines existed


    Meaning that you found this newsgroup, and decided to dig right in and
    post without bothering to search any of the archives or read the last
    few days worth of posts - or even the last few days worth of subject
    headings? That is what is meant by "needs a better Kindegarden". A
    means by which people are told how to not be rude when they encounter a
    new environment.

    > - but now after having read them I'm sure I recall
    > something about "...poster is unaware ...".


    Yes, you did. Specifically:
    A note to newsgroup "regulars":

    Do not use these guidelines as a "license to flame" or other
    meanness. It is possible that a poster is unaware of things
    discussed here. Give them the benefit of the doubt, and just
    help them learn how to post, rather than assume

    No where were you flamed for your *original* infraction. It was only
    after this infraction was pointed out to you, and that you continued to
    not alter your methods, were you "insulted".

    > > >>>> ... For larger groups, see non-capturing groups and/or non-capturing
    > > >>>> parentheses in perlre.

    > >
    > > That *is* the answer. Or were you upset that he did not hand feed you
    > > the solution, that he did not say "Put your expression inside a (?: )
    > > construct, because this is a non-capturing parenthesized group"? He
    > > directed you to the exact phrase to look for in the exact document to
    > > read. You are upset that he told you how and where to fish, rather
    > > than gave you one?

    >
    > Actually I wasn't upset, just confused, as I imagine many newbies to
    > perl would be when encountering this:
    > >>... For larger groups, see non-capturing groups and/or non-capturing parentheses in perlre.


    Okay. You were confused. That's actually pretty understandable. And
    yet, rather than asking for clarification, you simply made an
    accusation that someone was unhelpful and never gave you any answers.

    > This would explain the use of the relatively technical term '
    > non-capturing', which I might not be familiar with (and in fact I
    > wasn't - so unfamiliar was I that it didn't even register as a
    > technical term, so unfamiliar I didn't realise that 'perlre' was a
    > document reference, rather I guessed it was a typo, and as a result
    > couldn't figure out what the suggestion meant at all. )


    Again - if you're confused by a response, you should ask about that
    response. You didn't know what "perlre" was? Why didn't you simply
    ask "What do you mean by 'perlre'?" You quite likely would have gotten
    a helpful pointer to the perl documentation, at which point you could
    have read and searched for the phrase "non-capturing". Instead, you
    just snipped the portions you didn't understand, and claimed that no
    one is being helpful.

    Paul Lalli
     
    Paul Lalli, Nov 7, 2005
    #12
  13. Guest

    Paul Lalli wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > Paul Lalli wrote:
    > > > wrote:
    > > > Do you see three lines below that? Where it says "> Well, Thank you, I
    > > > guess ?!?!?"? That's context. That lets people reading this message
    > > > know what I'm replying to. That also has been custom and tradition for
    > > > decades. That's the other thing you keep snipping. Apologize, correct
    > > > yourself, and move on.

    > >
    > > You want me to apologize for having someone tell me that I have a
    > > learning rate of zero ?

    >
    > No, I want you to apologize to anyone else reading these messages for
    > making it harder to follow the thread, by not quoting context, and by
    > not attributing.
    >


    OK, how do I do that ?

    It seems to me that *you* can follow this thread just fine, and
    appearantly I haven't taken the requisite steps for you do to so,
    please explain.


    > > > > >>Please learn how to post properly.
    > > > > Oh, great wise sage of comp.lang.perl.misc please help me to gain the
    > > > > requisite knowledge
    > > >
    > > > It requires neither greatness nor wisdom to read the posting guidelines
    > > > that are posted to this group twice a week, every week. Go. Read
    > > > them.

    > >
    > > Gosh, I didn't realise that it was a requirement to read and obey all
    > > the posting guidelines. Actually it's quite odd - I had no idea such
    > > guidlines existed

    >
    > Meaning that you found this newsgroup, and decided to dig right in and
    > post without bothering to search any of the archives or read the last
    > few days worth of posts - or even the last few days worth of subject
    > headings? That is what is meant by "needs a better Kindegarden". A
    > means by which people are told how to not be rude when they encounter a
    > new environment.
    >


    Actually I did do a search in the three perl reference books I have
    access to "Learning Perl", "Programming Perl", and "Perl in a
    Nutshell"; all O'Reilly books, as well as reviewing several posting in
    this newsgroup.

    As I have stated, I missed the sentence which discussed using the
    /(?:expression)/ syntax.
    I realise now why that is, and it is because /(expression)/ would
    appear to have 'used up' the use of parentheses as a grouping operator.
    I would never have imagined that they would be reused with the aid of
    a ? and :

    > > - but now after having read them I'm sure I recall
    > > something about "...poster is unaware ...".

    >
    > Yes, you did. Specifically:
    > A note to newsgroup "regulars":
    >
    > Do not use these guidelines as a "license to flame" or other
    > meanness. It is possible that a poster is unaware of things
    > discussed here. Give them the benefit of the doubt, and just
    > help them learn how to post, rather than assume
    >
    > No where were you flamed for your *original* infraction. It was only
    > after this infraction was pointed out to you, and that you continued to
    > not alter your methods, were you "insulted".
    >


    Hmm...
    The first time I have *ever* seen "[no context, no attribution]" used
    in a newgroup posting was Anno's response. When I saw it I wasn't even
    sure if he had written it, or if it was somehow automatically inserted
    by whatever software he was using to post to the newsgroup. Nor did I
    understand that it had *any* significance. Since my initial impression
    was that it was a software generated sequence of garbage I did the
    polite thing and ignored it.

    > > > >>>> ... For larger groups, see non-capturing groups and/or non-capturing
    > > > >>>> parentheses in perlre.
    > > >
    > > > That *is* the answer. Or were you upset that he did not hand feed you
    > > > the solution, that he did not say "Put your expression inside a (?: )
    > > > construct, because this is a non-capturing parenthesized group"? He
    > > > directed you to the exact phrase to look for in the exact document to
    > > > read. You are upset that he told you how and where to fish, rather
    > > > than gave you one?

    > >
    > > Actually I wasn't upset, just confused, as I imagine many newbies to
    > > perl would be when encountering this:
    > > >>... For larger groups, see non-capturing groups and/or non-capturing parentheses in perlre.

    >
    > Okay. You were confused. That's actually pretty understandable. And
    > yet, rather than asking for clarification, you simply made an
    > accusation that someone was unhelpful and never gave you any answers.
    >


    Hmm.. I guess I understand part of the problem. Anno interpreted this
    sentence:
    >>>>Actually, the simple answer to my question would have been:

    to be critical of his help. I guess it does sound critical, although
    wasn't really meant to be so.

    > > This would explain the use of the relatively technical term '
    > > non-capturing', which I might not be familiar with (and in fact I
    > > wasn't - so unfamiliar was I that it didn't even register as a
    > > technical term, so unfamiliar I didn't realise that 'perlre' was a
    > > document reference, rather I guessed it was a typo, and as a result
    > > couldn't figure out what the suggestion meant at all. )

    >
    > Again - if you're confused by a response, you should ask about that
    > response. You didn't know what "perlre" was? Why didn't you simply
    > ask "What do you mean by 'perlre'?" You quite likely would have gotten
    > a helpful pointer to the perl documentation, at which point you could
    > have read and searched for the phrase "non-capturing". Instead, you
    > just snipped the portions you didn't understand, and claimed that no
    > one is being helpful.
    >
    > Paul Lalli


    I never said that no one was being helpful.

    But, thanks for your input. I suppose I have learned one lesson: tread
    carefully in the comp.lang.perl.misc newsgroup. It's a shame really,
    considering the prosthelitizing of perl zealots.
     
    , Nov 7, 2005
    #13
  14. Paul Lalli Guest

    wrote:
    > Paul Lalli wrote:
    > > wrote:
    > > > You want me to apologize for having someone tell me that I have a
    > > > learning rate of zero ?

    > >
    > > No, I want you to apologize to anyone else reading these messages for
    > > making it harder to follow the thread, by not quoting context, and by
    > > not attributing.

    >
    > OK, how do I do that ?
    >
    > It seems to me that *you* can follow this thread just fine, and
    > appearantly I haven't taken the requisite steps for you do to so,
    > please explain.


    2 different factors:
    1) Because I am *choosing* to put more effort than should be required
    into following this thread. I am specifically using a newsreader that
    automatically threads by default, and have chosen to use that threading
    feature, and I am scrolling up to find out who said what when you don't
    quote. You should not be assuming that everyone else is doing the
    same.
    2) Because all of the reply posts HAPPENED to hit the newsserver I'm
    using after the messages to which they are replying. NNTP by no means
    guarantees this. Posts can arrive in any order, or not at all.
    Quoting and providing context allows people to follow a reply message
    even if the original message has not yet arrived on their server.

    > > > Gosh, I didn't realise that it was a requirement to read and obey all
    > > > the posting guidelines. Actually it's quite odd - I had no idea such
    > > > guidlines existed

    > >
    > > Meaning that you found this newsgroup, and decided to dig right in and
    > > post without bothering to search any of the archives or read the last
    > > few days worth of posts - or even the last few days worth of subject
    > > headings? That is what is meant by "needs a better Kindegarden". A
    > > means by which people are told how to not be rude when they encounter a
    > > new environment.
    > >

    >
    > Actually I did do a search in the three perl reference books I have
    > access to "Learning Perl", "Programming Perl", and "Perl in a
    > Nutshell"; all O'Reilly books,


    What do any of those have to do with this newsgroup? Or with how to
    post an effective reply? Or with Usenet custom and tradition?

    > as well as reviewing several posting in this newsgroup.


    And you *never* saw mention of the Posting Guidelines? You are either
    astonishingly unobservant, improbably unlucky, or flat out lying.

    > As I have stated, I missed the sentence which discussed using the
    > /(?:expression)/ syntax.
    > I realise now why that is, and it is because /(expression)/ would
    > appear to have 'used up' the use of parentheses as a grouping operator.
    > I would never have imagined that they would be reused with the aid of
    > a ? and :


    NO ONE has berated you for not knowing about this feature ahead of
    time, or even for not understanding the passage in the relevant
    perldoc. What are you talking about?

    > Hmm...
    > The first time I have *ever* seen "[no context, no attribution]" used
    > in a newgroup posting was Anno's response. When I saw it I wasn't even
    > sure if he had written it, or if it was somehow automatically inserted
    > by whatever software he was using to post to the newsgroup. Nor did I
    > understand that it had *any* significance. Since my initial impression
    > was that it was a software generated sequence of garbage I did the
    > polite thing and ignored it.


    ..... you ignored something that at the very least you believed COULD
    have been posted by the person attempting to help you, and you consider
    that "polite"? I don't even know what to say to that.

    > > Instead, you
    > > just snipped the portions you didn't understand, and claimed that no
    > > one is being helpful.

    >
    > I never said that no one was being helpful.


    Really?
    http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.perl.misc/msg/4407297edc15f6db?dmode=source
    > >What are you going on about?

    > Your lack of helpfulness, and asinine attitude


    To this point, Anno was the only one responding to you. You accused
    him of not being helpful. Was there someone else you were claiming was
    being helpful?

    > But, thanks for your input. I suppose I have learned one lesson: tread
    > carefully in the comp.lang.perl.misc newsgroup.


    <sigh> You haven't learned anything, actually. There is no need to
    "tread carefully". All that is needed to get the most out of this
    group is to put forth some effort into solving your own problems, ask
    effective questions, and apply the knowledge gained by the responses.
    If the first time you saw "[no context, no attributions]", you had
    asked "what are those?", or if the first time you saw "perlre", you
    asked "what is that, or where can I find it?", damn near none of this
    thread would have happened.

    Paul Lalli
     
    Paul Lalli, Nov 7, 2005
    #14
  15. Guest

    Paul Lalli wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > Paul Lalli wrote:
    > > > wrote:
    > > > > You want me to apologize for having someone tell me that I have a
    > > > > learning rate of zero ?
    > > >
    > > > No, I want you to apologize to anyone else reading these messages for
    > > > making it harder to follow the thread, by not quoting context, and by
    > > > not attributing.

    > >
    > > OK, how do I do that ?
    > >
    > > It seems to me that *you* can follow this thread just fine, and
    > > appearantly I haven't taken the requisite steps for you do to so,
    > > please explain.

    >
    > 2 different factors:
    > 1) Because I am *choosing* to put more effort than should be required
    > into following this thread. I am specifically using a newsreader that
    > automatically threads by default, and have chosen to use that threading
    > feature, and I am scrolling up to find out who said what when you don't
    > quote. You should not be assuming that everyone else is doing the
    > same.


    Isn't a threaded newsreader pretty much standard since about 1985 ?

    > 2) Because all of the reply posts HAPPENED to hit the newsserver I'm
    > using after the messages to which they are replying. NNTP by no means
    > guarantees this. Posts can arrive in any order, or not at all.
    > Quoting and providing context allows people to follow a reply message
    > even if the original message has not yet arrived on their server.
    >


    > > > > Gosh, I didn't realise that it was a requirement to read and obey all
    > > > > the posting guidelines. Actually it's quite odd - I had no idea such
    > > > > guidlines existed
    > > >
    > > > Meaning that you found this newsgroup, and decided to dig right in and
    > > > post without bothering to search any of the archives or read the last
    > > > few days worth of posts - or even the last few days worth of subject
    > > > headings? That is what is meant by "needs a better Kindegarden". A
    > > > means by which people are told how to not be rude when they encounter a
    > > > new environment.
    > > >

    > >
    > > Actually I did do a search in the three perl reference books I have
    > > access to "Learning Perl", "Programming Perl", and "Perl in a
    > > Nutshell"; all O'Reilly books,

    >
    > What do any of those have to do with this newsgroup? Or with how to
    > post an effective reply? Or with Usenet custom and tradition?
    >


    Hmm... Isn't this the perl language 'misc' topics newsgroup ?

    Which book that I cite falls out of those bounds.

    > > as well as reviewing several posting in this newsgroup.

    >
    > And you *never* saw mention of the Posting Guidelines? You are either
    > astonishingly unobservant, improbably unlucky, or flat out lying.
    >


    I think this is my second posting to any perl related newgroup in the
    past 15 years.
    I must be improbably unlucky

    > > As I have stated, I missed the sentence which discussed using the
    > > /(?:expression)/ syntax.
    > > I realise now why that is, and it is because /(expression)/ would
    > > appear to have 'used up' the use of parentheses as a grouping operator.
    > > I would never have imagined that they would be reused with the aid of
    > > a ? and :

    >
    > NO ONE has berated you for not knowing about this feature ahead of
    > time, or even for not understanding the passage in the relevant
    > perldoc. What are you talking about?
    >


    I never said they did.


    > > Hmm...
    > > The first time I have *ever* seen "[no context, no attribution]" used
    > > in a newgroup posting was Anno's response. When I saw it I wasn't even
    > > sure if he had written it, or if it was somehow automatically inserted
    > > by whatever software he was using to post to the newsgroup. Nor did I
    > > understand that it had *any* significance. Since my initial impression
    > > was that it was a software generated sequence of garbage I did the
    > > polite thing and ignored it.

    >
    > .... you ignored something that at the very least you believed COULD
    > have been posted by the person attempting to help you, and you consider
    > that "polite"? I don't even know what to say to that.
    >


    Yes, and No.

    Yes, I ignored it, I've already admitted to that.
    No, I never believed it COULD have been posted in an attempt to help
    me, since it didn't seem to have any contextual relevance. As I have
    stated, it looked to me like some gibberish prepended to his comments
    by some lame software.

    > > > Instead, you
    > > > just snipped the portions you didn't understand, and claimed that no
    > > > one is being helpful.

    > >
    > > I never said that no one was being helpful.

    >
    > Really?
    > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.perl.misc/msg/4407297edc15f6db?dmode=source
    > > >What are you going on about?

    > > Your lack of helpfulness, and asinine attitude

    >


    Yes, after I was insulted.

    > To this point, Anno was the only one responding to you. You accused
    > him of not being helpful. Was there someone else you were claiming was
    > being helpful?
    >
    > > But, thanks for your input. I suppose I have learned one lesson: tread
    > > carefully in the comp.lang.perl.misc newsgroup.

    >
    > <sigh> You haven't learned anything, actually. There is no need to
    > "tread carefully". All that is needed to get the most out of this
    > group is to put forth some effort into solving your own problems, ask
    > effective questions, and apply the knowledge gained by the responses.
    > If the first time you saw "[no context, no attributions]", you had
    > asked "what are those?", or if the first time you saw "perlre", you
    > asked "what is that, or where can I find it?", damn near none of this
    > thread would have happened.
    >
    > Paul Lalli


    My point exactly.
     
    , Nov 7, 2005
    #15
  16. Paul Lalli Guest

    I'm replying one last time, because you asked specific questions.
    After that, go ahead and have the last word. I'm done with this
    thread.

    wrote:
    > > 1) Because I am *choosing* to put more effort than should be required
    > > into following this thread. I am specifically using a newsreader that
    > > automatically threads by default, and have chosen to use that threading
    > > feature, and I am scrolling up to find out who said what when you don't
    > > quote. You should not be assuming that everyone else is doing the
    > > same.

    >
    > Isn't a threaded newsreader pretty much standard since about 1985 ?


    No.

    > > > > Meaning that you found this newsgroup, and decided to dig right in and
    > > > > post without bothering to search any of the archives or read the last
    > > > > few days worth of posts - or even the last few days worth of subject
    > > > > headings? That is what is meant by "needs a better Kindegarden". A
    > > > > means by which people are told how to not be rude when they encounter a
    > > > > new environment.
    > > >
    > > > Actually I did do a search in the three perl reference books I have
    > > > access to "Learning Perl", "Programming Perl", and "Perl in a
    > > > Nutshell"; all O'Reilly books,

    > >
    > > What do any of those have to do with this newsgroup? Or with how to
    > > post an effective reply? Or with Usenet custom and tradition?

    >
    > Hmm... Isn't this the perl language 'misc' topics newsgroup ?
    >
    > Which book that I cite falls out of those bounds.


    Not a one. But you posted them in response to my comment about how you
    failed to observe *Usenet* traditions, which has absolutely nothing to
    do with *Perl*.

    > > > as well as reviewing several posting in this newsgroup.

    > >
    > > And you *never* saw mention of the Posting Guidelines? You are either
    > > astonishingly unobservant, improbably unlucky, or flat out lying.
    > >

    >
    > I think this is my second posting to any perl related newgroup in the
    > past 15 years.
    > I must be improbably unlucky


    Wait, what are you arguing now? You said, in response to my accusation
    that you failed to follow Usenet traditions, that you "review[ed]
    several posting (sic) in this newsgroup". But now you're saying this
    was the second thread to which you ever posted. I'm confused as to
    what this new bit of information has to do with my original accusation.

    > > > As I have stated, I missed the sentence which discussed using the
    > > > /(?:expression)/ syntax.
    > > > I realise now why that is, and it is because /(expression)/ would
    > > > appear to have 'used up' the use of parentheses as a grouping operator.
    > > > I would never have imagined that they would be reused with the aid of
    > > > a ? and :

    > >
    > > NO ONE has berated you for not knowing about this feature ahead of
    > > time, or even for not understanding the passage in the relevant
    > > perldoc. What are you talking about?

    >
    > I never said they did.


    Perhaps I misunderstood your intention in posting this paragraph, then.
    Perhaps you could explain what it was? If it was not in reference to
    the passages that came before it, what was the point of it?

    > > > Hmm...
    > > > The first time I have *ever* seen "[no context, no attribution]" used
    > > > in a newgroup posting was Anno's response. When I saw it I wasn't even
    > > > sure if he had written it, or if it was somehow automatically inserted
    > > > by whatever software he was using to post to the newsgroup. Nor did I
    > > > understand that it had *any* significance. Since my initial impression
    > > > was that it was a software generated sequence of garbage I did the
    > > > polite thing and ignored it.

    > >
    > > .... you ignored something that at the very least you believed COULD
    > > have been posted by the person attempting to help you, and you consider
    > > that "polite"? I don't even know what to say to that.
    > >

    >
    > Yes, and No.
    >
    > Yes, I ignored it, I've already admitted to that.
    > No, I never believed it COULD have been posted in an attempt to help
    > me, since it didn't seem to have any contextual relevance.


    .... I don't understand how you can say that, while simultaneously
    quoting your original passage: "When I saw it, I wasn't even sure if he
    had written it". You weren't sure. So you didn't know. So it COULD
    have been one way or the other.

    > As I have
    > stated, it looked to me like some gibberish prepended to his comments
    > by some lame software.


    Yes, that was the assumption you made... but you also seemed to
    acknowledge that it *was* an assumption, and that there were
    alternative explanations. Are you now saying this was not the case?

    > > > But, thanks for your input. I suppose I have learned one lesson: tread
    > > > carefully in the comp.lang.perl.misc newsgroup.

    > >
    > > <sigh> You haven't learned anything, actually. There is no need to
    > > "tread carefully". All that is needed to get the most out of this
    > > group is to put forth some effort into solving your own problems, ask
    > > effective questions, and apply the knowledge gained by the responses.
    > > If the first time you saw "[no context, no attributions]", you had
    > > asked "what are those?", or if the first time you saw "perlre", you
    > > asked "what is that, or where can I find it?", damn near none of this
    > > thread would have happened.

    >
    > My point exactly.


    Ah. I see. So the combination of those three factors (put forth
    effort, ask effective questions, and and apply knowledge) are too much
    to ask of you? They add up to needing to "tread carefully"? I think I
    now completely understand your mentality. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Good day to you. As I said, I will not be replying to anything else in
    this thread.

    Paul Lalli
     
    Paul Lalli, Nov 7, 2005
    #16
  17. Guest

    wrote:
    >>> [no attribution, no context, again]


    > Well, Thank you, I guess ?!?!?


    >>>You're showing a learning rate of zero.

    > How strange you should say that, I've already learned to not like you.


    >>>Please learn how to post properly.

    > Oh, great wise sage of comp.lang.perl.misc please help me to gain the
    > requisite knowledge


    >>>>> Read about the use of parenthesis without triggering memory, in other
    >>>>> words /(?:expression)/


    >>> Yes, I've given that answer (you snipped it):


    > I find this to be a very strange conversation. You claim to have given
    > me the answer, yet when I review your first two postings neither
    > contains /(?:expression)/


    >>>What are you going on about?

    > Your lack of helpfulness, and asinine attitude


    Whose lack of helpfulness? How many hard Euros did you put down or
    how many beers did you reserve? If both as I suspect come to equal
    zero, you got more than you paid for.

    Axel
     
    , Nov 8, 2005
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. hiwa
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    649
  2. Victor
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    657
    Victor
    May 17, 2004
  3. KK
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    651
    Big Brian
    Oct 14, 2003
  4. ekzept
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    386
    ekzept
    Aug 10, 2007
  5. John Gordon
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    500
    Ian Kelly
    Dec 20, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page