Prev: DBIx::XML::DataLoader
Next: Posting Guidelines for comp.lang.perl.misc ($Revision: 1.8 $)
From: Gordon Etly on 15 Apr 2008 20:58
J�rgen Exner wrote:
> "Gordon Etly" <get(a)bentsys.com> wrote:
>> What is so wrong with adding to that list,
>>
>> "PERL" refers to "Practical Extraction and Report Language" ?
>
> Is there a particular reason, why you prefer that expansion over
> Larry's own suggestion "Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister"?

It's not about what -I- prefer, but what is written in 'perldoc perl'. I
do know the document that statement comes from, and I understand what
you are getting at, but in the end it's what is written in 'perldoc
perl' that I'm looking at.

>> That IS how acronyms work, whether people like you want to admit it
>> or not.
>
> Oh, and BTW: acronyms work exactly the opposite direction: You got a
> name, take the leading letters, and thus create a new artificial word.
> That would be an acronym.

Well if you are looking at pure semantics, then you're probably right,
but in general, does it matter which end you are looking from, as long
as you are looking at the same thing? It is written in long form in the
documentation and thus not explicitly written as "PERL", and I know
"PERL" is not used in the documentation, but the question remains, what
is wrong with -using- "PERL" to -refer- to the meaning the documentation
provides? That's all it is, a simple question.

> Having an artificial word and trying match the lead letters of a
> sequence of words to it is not an acronym but a backronym.

Granted, but please see above.

--
G.Etly


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: DBIx::XML::DataLoader
Next: Posting Guidelines for comp.lang.perl.misc ($Revision: 1.8 $)