|
Posted by Gordon Etly on April 16, 2008, 2:52 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Jürgen Exner wrote:
>> `PERL` very well could correspond with `Practical Extraction
>> and Report Language`
>
> It very well could and probably does. But what does that have to do
> with the programming language named 'Perl'?
It doesn't, but that was never my point. My point was simply the
//usage// of "PERL" as a short hand for that expansion. I hope this is
clear now :)
--
G.Etly
|
|
Posted by Charlton Wilbur on April 16, 2008, 2:23 pm
Please log in for more thread options
SB> It maybe a joke to *you* but your opinion doesn't change what
SB> it says in the applicable doc.
To wit:
But never write "PERL", because perl is not an acronym,
apocryphal folklore and post†facto expansions notwithstanding.
It seems to me that the FAQ is as applicable a document as the
manpage. Or do you have some hermeneutic grounds for claiming that
the manpage is more important?
SB> } If you want to engage with those knowlegeable in a subject,
SB> } you should adopt their conventions. If not....your call...
SB> So, `my way or the hiway`? Are you saying no one may question
SB> rules, conventions, and ideals? Is this really the way you
SB> feel a community should function?
No, he's saying that this point has been questioned many times and it
has thus far always been decided in favor of the side you're arging
against.
Consider the use of 'of' in the place of 'have', as in 'I should of
gone to the bank yesterday.' It's a common error, and it's possible
to make a case for its acceptance; it's certainly popular enough, and
most people know what it means. However, it's still incorrect, and
using it will mark you in the eyes of literate people as either
careless or ignorant.
So it is with 'PERL' -- using 'PERL' won't cause comprehension
problems, but it will mark you as either a novice who's still largely
ignorant of the rudiments of Perl or as a crank who'd rather argue
over trivialities in order to preserve his self-image as an
iconoclastic free thinker.
And, you know, being resistant to the FAQ's tutelage on a matter such
as PERL versus Perl versus perl means you're also likely to be
resistant to its elucidation of the problems with always quoting
"$vars", or with numeric representation problems, or with the problems
with symbolic references.
But if you want to come across as a novice or a crank, by all means,
feel free. You've now had ample fair warning.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@chromatico.net
|
|
Posted by Keith Keller on April 16, 2008, 5:56 pm
Please log in for more thread options >
> SB> It maybe a joke to *you* but your opinion doesn't change what
> SB> it says in the applicable doc.
>
> To wit:
>
> But never write "PERL", because perl is not an acronym,
> apocryphal folklore and post? facto expansions notwithstanding.
>
> It seems to me that the FAQ is as applicable a document as the
> manpage. Or do you have some hermeneutic grounds for claiming that
> the manpage is more important?
The FAQ *is* a manpage: at least on my box,
man perlfaq
turns up the same document as
perldoc perlfaq
> But if you want to come across as a novice or a crank, by all means,
> feel free. You've now had ample fair warning.
My first scorefile entry from NIH! I'm touched. ;-)
--keith
--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
|
|
Posted by RedGrittyBrick on April 15, 2008, 12:07 pm
Please log in for more thread options Achim Peters wrote:
> 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, [...]
>
> ;-)
>
PYTHON(1)
NAME
python - an interpreted ...
...
Python is an interpreted ...
Every man page on this particular Linux system has the program name in
all-capitals in the page heading, regardless of whether the name is an
abbreviation of any sort. I wouldn't infer anything from that.
--
RGB
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | perl should be improved and perl6 | April 4, 2008, 5:08 pm |
| Will Programming Perl 4th ed be Perl5 or Perl6? | March 27, 2005, 1:31 am |
| what's wrong calling a Perl/CGI script in Perl/CGI script under Tomcat server? | April 8, 2007, 11:38 pm |
| Perldoc: No documentation on perl found [newbie] | December 10, 2004, 1:22 pm |
| what's wrong in this Perl Regex expression? | September 25, 2004, 3:31 pm |
| makefile shows wrong perl version | May 10, 2007, 4:32 pm |
| FAQ 3.30 I've read perlembed, perlguts, etc., but I can't embed perl in my C program; what am I doing wrong? | February 17, 2005, 6:03 pm |
| FAQ 3.29 I've read perlembed, perlguts, etc., but I can't embed perl in my C program; what am I doing wrong? | March 29, 2005, 6:03 am |
| FAQ 3.29 I've read perlembed, perlguts, etc., but I can't embed perl in my C program; what am I doing wrong? | June 13, 2005, 11:03 pm |
| FAQ 3.29 I've read perlembed, perlguts, etc., but I can't embed perl in my C program; what am I doing wrong? | August 27, 2005, 10:03 pm |
|
XML Sitemap