Prev: DBIx::XML::DataLoader
Next: Posting Guidelines for comp.lang.perl.misc ($Revision: 1.8 $)
From: Gordon Etly on 14 Apr 2008 23:37
Jim Cochrane wrote:
> On 2008-04-14, Chris Mattern <syscjm(a)sumire.gwu.edu> wrote:
>> On 2008-04-14, Jim Cochrane <allergic-to-spam(a)no-spam-allowed.org>
>> wrote: <snip>
>>>
>>> Actually, "I should of course said" is still wrong - missing a verb
>>> component - should be: "I should of course have said".
>>>
>> 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 .......)


Just for the record, that was never my plight. But alas it is no use, I
see, given of all the closed-mindedness abound; what ever happened to
free thinking? Not one soul had actually addressed the question itself:
why is it wrong to use PERL if 'perldoc perl' gives it a meaning that
can be shortened to just "PERL"? I don't expect a straight answer given
what's already transpired, and this is the last time I will ask it.

--
G.Etly


From: Glenn Jackman on 15 Apr 2008 09:09
At 2008-04-14 11:37PM, "Gordon Etly" wrote:
> why is it wrong to use PERL if 'perldoc perl' gives it a meaning that
> can be shortened to just "PERL"? I don't expect a straight answer given
> what's already transpired, and this is the last time I will ask it.

That's too bad. It was very entertaining watching the struggle between
the immovable object and the irresistable force. You can decide who
fits which role.

--
Glenn Jackman
"If there is anything the nonconformist hates worse than a conformist,
it's another nonconformist who doesn't conform to the prevailing
standard of nonconformity." -- Bill Vaughan
From: Chris Mattern on 15 Apr 2008 10:41
On 2008-04-15, Achim Peters <achimpeters(a)gmx.de> wrote:
> Gordon Etly schrieb:
>> Jim Cochrane wrote:
>>> (I better stop replying now before we get too far sidetracked from
>>> perl vs. Perl vs. PERL vs. pERL .......)
>>
>>
>> Just for the record, that was never my plight. But alas it is no use, I
>> see, given of all the closed-mindedness abound; what ever happened to
>> free thinking? Not one soul had actually addressed the question itself:
>> why is it wrong to use PERL if 'perldoc perl' gives it a meaning that
>> can be shortened to just "PERL"?
>
> Not only that. With 'perldoc perl' in perl 5.8.2 I indeed do get three
> different spellings ("perl", "Perl", _and_ "PERL"):
>
>| PERL(1) perl v5.8.2 (2004-02-16) PERL(1)
>|
> [...]
>|
>| perl - [...]
>|
>| If you're new to Perl, [...]
>
> ;-)
>
No, the usage of "perl" and "Perl" is correct. "perl" refers to
the program, which is what the first line is describing. "Perl"
means the language in the abstract, which is what the second line
is talking about (it's not worried about whether you're new to
5.8.2, but about whether you're new to Perl as a whole).

--
Christopher Mattern

NOTICE
Thank you for noticing this new notice
Your noticing it has been noted
And will be reported to the authorities
From: Gordon Etly on 15 Apr 2008 11:40
Chris Mattern wrote:
> On 2008-04-15, Achim Peters <achimpeters(a)gmx.de> wrote:
>> Gordon Etly schrieb:
>>> Jim Cochrane wrote:
>>>> (I better stop replying now before we get too far sidetracked from
>>>> perl vs. Perl vs. PERL vs. pERL .......)
>>>
>>>
>>> Just for the record, that was never my plight. But alas it is no
>>> use, I see, given of all the closed-mindedness abound; what ever
>>> happened to free thinking? Not one soul had actually addressed the
>>> question itself: why is it wrong to use PERL if 'perldoc perl'
>>> gives it a meaning that can be shortened to just "PERL"?
>>
>> Not only that. With 'perldoc perl' in perl 5.8.2 I indeed do get
>> three different spellings ("perl", "Perl", _and_ "PERL"):
>>
>>> PERL(1) perl v5.8.2 (2004-02-16)
>>> PERL(1)
>>>
>> [...]
>>>
>>> perl - [...]
>>>
>>> If you're new to Perl, [...]
>>
>> ;-)
>>
> No, the usage of "perl" and "Perl" is correct. "perl" refers to
> the program, which is what the first line is describing. "Perl"
> means the language in the abstract, which is what the second line
> is talking about

Yes, we all know that, and that is not the point I have tried to make.

What is so wrong with adding to that list,

"PERL" refers to "Practical Extraction and Report Language" ?

That IS how acronyms work, whether people like you want to admit it or
not.

--
G.Etly


From: J�rgen Exner on 15 Apr 2008 12:41
"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"?

>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.

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

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