perl should be improved and perl6

G

Gordon Etly

RedGrittyBrick said:
i.e. both Larry and the docs use "perl" or "Perl" but *never* "PERL"
and have done so for many years.



See this page and the articles under "Culture".
http://www.wall.org/~larry/perl.html

No mentions of PERL that I can see.

'perldoc perl' defines PERL as "Practical Extraction and Report
Language" in the NAME line. Why do you ignore this?
 
G

Gordon Etly

RedGrittyBrick said:
'perldoc perl' defines perl as "Practical Extraction and Report
Language" in the NAME line. I'm not ignoring that.

'perldoc perl' contains "Perl" hundreds of times and 'PERL' zero
times. Why do you ignore this?

I'm not ignoring it at all. Whether or not "PERL" is used throughout the
documentation isn't the issue here. What is the issue is the fact that
since the main document defines "Practical Extraction and Report
Language", it should //not// be //wrong// to use "PERL".
 
M

Mark Seger

I haven't had this much fun reading a posting thread in a looong time.
keep up the good work! Reminds me of the old days I worked at DEC! or
was if dec or digital or Digital or DIGITAL? and after all that, how
many people have been around to even know what I'm talking about! 8-(
-mark
 
M

Mark Seger

Actually I found this so amusing I forwarded a posting off to a
colleague who promptly sent me the following:

"FWIW, the O'Reilly books are called
- Programming perl
- Programming Perl. 2nd Ed.
- PERL IN A NUTSHELL"

-mark
 
J

Jürgen Exner

Does it strike anyone else as interesting that there is no record of
postings from Gordon Etly in this NG except for this thread?

You may draw your own conlucions...

jue
 
A

Andrew DeFaria

Jürgen Exner said:
Does it strike anyone else as interesting that there is no record of
postings from Gordon Etly in this NG except for this thread? No
You may draw your own conlucions...
My conclusion is that he's only posted to this thread or you haven't
looked hard enough. So what?
 
J

Jürgen Exner

Andrew DeFaria said:
<!Doctype html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
J&uuml;rgen Exner wrote:
<blockquote id="mid_o8g10415o56m1i08qpmkk5ujj6fja5du3e_4ax_com"
cite="mid:eek:[email protected]" type="cite">"Gordon
<br>
Does it strike anyone else as interesting that there is no record of
postings from Gordon Etly in this NG except for this thread? <br>
</blockquote>
No<br>
<blockquote id="mid_o8g10415o56m1i08qpmkk5ujj6fja5du3e_4ax_com"
cite="mid:eek:[email protected]" type="cite">You
may draw your own conlucions...<br>
</blockquote>
My conclusion is that he's only posted to this thread or you haven't
looked&nbsp; hard enough. So what?<br>

Certainly. However at least _I_ find it rather strange that he has no
other interest but the capitalization of the name.
Also, his appearance in this NG at the same time as this stupid argument
is a really amazing coincidence.

You know, if it looks like a troll and smells like a troll then maybe it
it a troll?
 
G

Gordon Etly

Mark said:
Actually I found this so amusing I forwarded a posting off to a
colleague who promptly sent me the following:

"FWIW, the O'Reilly books are called
- Programming perl
- Programming Perl. 2nd Ed.
- PERL IN A NUTSHELL"

Yeah I've seen the nutshell book before and have found that interesting
too. I really wish people would just accept that it does indeed make
sense to write PERL if you mean it to say what 'perldoc perl' says.
 
J

John W. Krahn

Mark said:
I haven't had this much fun reading a posting thread in a looong time.
keep up the good work! Reminds me of the old days I worked at DEC! or
was if dec or digital or Digital or DIGITAL?

You mean Digital Equipment Corporation?


John
 
G

Gordon Etly

Jürgen Exner said:
Does it strike anyone else as interesting that there is no record of
postings from Gordon Etly in this NG except for this thread?

You may draw your own conlucions...

I've never been must of a poster, more of a reader, especially in this
group. I guess there's always something to set one off sooner or later.

Either way, thanks for avoiding the issue to make a personal attack. I
saw no written rule that one has to have a prior known posting record in
order to post somewhere. I've been a long time reader of this, among
many other groups and forums, and I see new faces come in here all the
time and yet I never see such comments like you just made.

FWIW, I thought I had a very good point going that many people simply
unwilling or unable to accept. IT doesn't mean one has to start making
personal attacks, however.
 
G

Gordon Etly

Jürgen Exner said:
Andrew DeFaria <[email protected]> wrote:
Certainly. However at least _I_ find it rather strange that he has no
other interest but the capitalization of the name.
Also, his appearance in this NG at the same time as this stupid
argument is a really amazing coincidence.

You know, if it looks like a troll and smells like a troll then maybe
it it a troll?

So, by your logic, if one wants to speak their mind about something they
believe in, they can only be a troll? Come now, if you don't like the
topic, don't come in making unfounded personal attacks. If you can't add
something constructive to a conversation, why jump in like this? Just to
look like you are some authority figure to police UseNet?
 
P

Peter J. Holzer

Yeah I've seen the nutshell book before and have found that interesting
too.

What's interesting about it? Book titles in all caps are quite common.
I really wish people would just accept that it does indeed make
sense to write PERL if you mean it to say what 'perldoc perl' says.

ONLY IF YOU WRITE IN ALL CAPS. OF COURSE THEN YOU'D HAVE TO WRITE \PERL
IF YOU MEAN THE LANGUAGE AND PERL IF YOU MEAN THE INTERPRETER. BUT
\T\A\N\S\T\A\A\F\L, AS THEY SAY.

\S\C\N\R,
HP
 
G

Gordon Etly

RedGrittyBrick said:
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.

[...]
 
G

Gordon Etly

Peter said:
What's interesting about it? Book titles in all caps are quite common.

Ok, I should of said, the first time I saw that book on a shelf I found
it interesting it spelt "Perl" that way, but yes, that is a common
style.

ONLY IF YOU WRITE IN ALL CAPS.

Again, you're missing the point. 'perldoc perl' says "Practical
Extraction and Report Language" so using "PERL" for short should not be
wrong since the primary document gives this meaning.
 
G

Gordon Etly

Jim said:
^^^^^^^^^
"should've" or "should have"

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.
 
J

Jürgen Exner

Gordon Etly said:
Depends what state you're from :)

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?
"should have"/"should've" is more
proper of course, but it's not terribly uncommon to see people using
"should of".

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.
Either way I never saw a sign saying one must use 100%
proper grammar.

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.

jue
 
W

Willem

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
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,479
Members
44,899
Latest member
RodneyMcAu

Latest Threads

Top