PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong? (was: Re: perl should be improved and perl6)

Jim Cochrane wrote:
> On 2008-04-14, Chris Mattern wrote:
>> On 2008-04-14, Jim Cochrane
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong? (was: Re: perl should be improved and perl6)

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

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong? (was: Re: perlshould be improved and perl6)

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, [...]

;-)

Bye
Achim

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong? (was: Re: perl should be improved and perl6)

On 2008-04-15, Achim Peters 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

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong? (was: Re: perl should be improved and perl6)

Chris Mattern wrote:
> On 2008-04-15, Achim Peters 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

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong? (was: Re: perlshould be improved and perl6)

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

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong? (was: Re: perl should be improved and perl6)

"Gordon Etly" 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

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

>>>>> "GE" == Gordon Etly writes:

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

GE> What is so wrong with adding to that list,

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

It does not reflect the usage patterns of the core Perl developers or
Perl experts. The correct usage and the rationale behind it are found
in the Perl FAQ, and no amont of railing and rationalization on your
part will change either.

Simply put: using 'PERL' marks you as someone clueless and ignorant;
if by chance you aren't clueless and ignorant, you're stubborn and
resistant to correction. There's little to be gained by interactions
with such people.

So, your choice is to continue insisting on the validity of 'PERL,'
and wind up in more and more killfiles; or to conform to community
standards and usages. The latter seems more satisfying, no doubt, but
when you do need help, if you have chosen that path, you're much less
likely to get help. Except from other cranks and novices, of course,
but that's not the help you generally want.

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

And people often make inferences about the education level, class, and
status of a person from his or her use of language. You've had it
pointed out that one of your usages marks you as either a novice or a
crank; you can continue using it if you see fit, but it is a
deliberate choice at this point and no longer an error.

There are other windmills at which it is more fun to tilt, no doubt.

Charlton



--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@chromatico.net

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong? (was: Re: perl should be improved and perl6)

Jürgen Exner wrote:
> "Gordon Etly" 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

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>> "GE" == Gordon Etly writes:
>
>> 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"
>> ?
>
> It does not reflect the usage patterns of the core Perl developers or
> Perl experts.

I understand that, honestly I do, but that is not what I was asking.
Quite simply, 'perldoc perl' gives an expansion, and my question is why
it should be wrong to use "PERL" as a short hand for that expansion,
since the expansion is found in the official docs?

--
G.Etly

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong? (was: Re: perlshould be improved and perl6)

Gordon Etly wrote:
> Jürgen Exner wrote:
>> "Gordon Etly" 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"?
>=20
> It's not about what -I- prefer, but what is written in 'perldoc perl'. =
I=20
> do know the document that statement comes from, and I understand what=20
> you are getting at, but in the end it's what is written in 'perldoc=20
> perl' that I'm looking at.

There are some papers at the supermarket that have articles about the=20
existence of Bigfoot. It's written down so it must be true. There are=20
some books that say that the moon landings were faked. It's written=20
down so it must be true. There are some books that claim that the earth =

was created in six days. It's written down so it must be true.


John
--=20
Perl isn't a toolbox, but a small machine shop where you
can special-order certain sorts of tools at low cost and
in short order. -- Larry Wall

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

>>>>> "GE" == Gordon Etly writes:

>> It does not reflect the usage patterns of the core Perl
>> developers or Perl experts.

GE> I understand that, honestly I do, but that is not what I was
GE> asking. Quite simply, 'perldoc perl' gives an expansion, and
GE> my question is why it should be wrong to use "PERL" as a short
GE> hand for that expansion, since the expansion is found in the
GE> official docs?

It's not *wrong*. It will just mark you as either a novice or a
crank, because people who are not novices will have learned that
'PERL' is widely considered incorrect, and people who are not cranks
do not insist on rationalizing usage that is widely considered
incorrect.

If you do not want people to react to you as if you were a novice or a
crank, don't use 'PERL.' Otherwise, carry on. This is the advice
that the FAQ is giving you, if you only have the wit to read it.

Charlton




--
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur@chromatico.net

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

>>>>> "GE" == Gordon Etly writes:

GE> I understand that, honestly I do, but that is not what I was asking.
GE> Quite simply, 'perldoc perl' gives an expansion, and my question is why
GE> it should be wrong to use "PERL" as a short hand for that expansion,
GE> since the expansion is found in the official docs?

why don't you just shut up about this already like you said you
would? all the people who want to use PERL are those who never help
others here. when is the last time you posted an answer to any perl
questions here? you have no standing in the perl community (here or
elsewhere) so why should your opinion matter? the retronym/backronym of
PERL is known. it is only used as a JOKE in the title and the PERL
spelling is because of the man page macros. larry doesn't use PERL. no
decent perl hacker says PERL. only the lame defenders of it here and who
never show up when real help is asked for defend its use. this isn't 12
angry men and you aren't henry fonda. there is no life on the line but
your reputation is. do you want to be known as someone who defends silly
and unsupported stuff like PERL and for nothing else? just drop this
already (don't even reply if you can help it) and move along. maybe you
will do something in the future to regain what little reputation you
might have had. but until then keep quiet. you are just digging a bigger
hole and you are about to stop seeing any sky above you.

uri

--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

>>>>> "JWK" == John W Krahn writes:

JWK> There are some papers at the supermarket that have articles about the
JWK> existence of Bigfoot. It's written down so it must be true. There are
JWK> some books that say that the moon landings were faked. It's written
JWK> down so it must be true. There are some books that claim that the earth
JWK> was created in six days. It's written down so it must be true.

damn you!! you have ruined my decade by exposing my beliefs to
ridicule. i will have to start using PERL from now on!

uri

--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

John W. Krahn wrote:
> Gordon Etly wrote:
>> Jürgen Exner wrote:
>>> "Gordon Etly" 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.
>
> There are some papers at the supermarket that have articles about the
> existence of Bigfoot. It's written down so it must be true. There
> are some books that say that the moon landings were faked. It's
> written down so it must be true. There are some books that claim
> that the earth was created in six days. It's written down so it must
> be true.

That's nice, but what the heck does any of that have to do with the
discussion? How can you compare a tabloid to the official documentation
of a programming language??

--
G.Etly

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

Uri Guttman wrote:
} Gordon Etly writes:
} >
} > I understand that, honestly I do, but that is not what I was asking.
} > Quite simply, 'perldoc perl' gives an expansion, and my question is
} > why it should be wrong to use "PERL" as a short hand for that
} > expansion, since the expansion is found in the official docs?
}
} why don't you just shut up about this already like you said you

If you bothered to read the thread, he replied to someone who replied before
he did, so why focus this one single individual, and waste a perfectly good
post displaying you are incapable of opening your mind to other
possibilities instead of acting as if all the FAQs, et al, are carved in
granite.

} all the people who want to use PERL are those who never help
} others here.

That's a rather broad statement, don'cha think? There is a certain logic in
rewriting `Practical Extraction and Report Language` as `PERL` which is a
common form of writing a term whose characters each have a documented
meaning, which would appear to be the case.

} when is the last time you posted an answer to any perl
} questions here? you have no standing in the perl community (here or
} elsewhere) so why should your opinion matter?

Why should the opinion of a pompous ass who can't even correctly use a shift
key at the start of a sentence and for proper nouns? You don't even write
"Perl" properly. Second, wtf makes you the one who decides who is allowed to
start a discussion? Obviously you don't approve of the subject matter, well
too bad. I seriously doubt you have the necessary information to determine
where and if someone has any "standing", nor are you any more or less
special than anyone else so either get with it or kindly stfu.


Stephan.

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

"Stephan Bour" wrote:
>There is a certain logic in
>rewriting `Practical Extraction and Report Language` as `PERL` which is a
>common form of writing a term whose characters each have a documented
>meaning, which would appear to be the case.

Sure. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

Unfortunately this argument is not applicable to the name of the
programming language that is discussed in this NG, because the language
was named 'Perl', then afterwards(!) the term 'Practical Extraction and
Report Language' was found as a backcronym, and there is no rule or
established custom that the capitalization of a proper name has to be
changed just because now there is a backcronym available.

If you call your friend Joel 'Jolly Old Excentric Lamer' that doesn't
mean that he has to write his name in all caps, either.

jue

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

Uri Guttman wrote:
>>>>>> "JWK" == John W Krahn writes:
>
> JWK> There are some papers at the supermarket that have articles about the
> JWK> existence of Bigfoot. It's written down so it must be true. There are
> JWK> some books that say that the moon landings were faked. It's written
> JWK> down so it must be true. There are some books that claim that the earth
> JWK> was created in six days. It's written down so it must be true.
>
> damn you!! you have ruined my decade by exposing my beliefs to
> ridicule. i will have to start using PERL from now on!

Sure, you can get the latest version at:

http://search.cpan.org/~jmcnamara/Acme-Inline-PERL-0.01/


John
--
Perl isn't a toolbox, but a small machine shop where you
can special-order certain sorts of tools at low cost and
in short order. -- Larry Wall

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

>>>>> "SB" == Stephan Bour writes:

SB> Uri Guttman wrote:

SB> } why don't you just shut up about this already like you said you

SB> If you bothered to read the thread, he replied to someone who
SB> replied before he did, so why focus this one single individual,
SB> and waste a perfectly good post displaying you are incapable of
SB> opening your mind to other possibilities instead of acting as if
SB> all the FAQs, et al, are carved in granite.

he was continuing when he said he wouldn't. he singled himself out.

SB> } all the people who want to use PERL are those who never help
SB> } others here.

SB> That's a rather broad statement, don'cha think? There is a certain
SB> logic in rewriting `Practical Extraction and Report Language` as
SB> `PERL` which is a common form of writing a term whose characters
SB> each have a documented meaning, which would appear to be the case.

and did you address my point? do you help people here? i don't recall
your name on many posts. it is simple. you help with real perl
questions, you have a right to say stuff about this group.

SB> } when is the last time you posted an answer to any perl
SB> } questions here? you have no standing in the perl community (here or
SB> } elsewhere) so why should your opinion matter?

SB> Why should the opinion of a pompous ass who can't even correctly
SB> use a shift key at the start of a sentence and for proper nouns?
SB> You don't even write "Perl" properly. Second, wtf makes you the
SB> one who decides who is allowed to start a discussion? Obviously
SB> you don't approve of the subject matter, well too bad. I seriously
SB> doubt you have the necessary information to determine where and if
SB> someone has any "standing", nor are you any more or less special
SB> than anyone else so either get with it or kindly stfu.

ooh, such wit and wisdom. i am not the only one with the attitude about
who can say stuff and who can't. the rule is as i stated, you help with
perl questions, you can say stuff. you don't help so your comments are
moot (and should be muted).

uri

--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

>>>>> "JWK" == John W Krahn writes:

JWK> Uri Guttman wrote:
>>>>>>> "JWK" == John W Krahn writes:
JWK> There are some papers at the supermarket that have articles
>> about the
JWK> existence of Bigfoot. It's written down so it must be true. There are
JWK> some books that say that the moon landings were faked. It's written
JWK> down so it must be true. There are some books that claim that the earth
JWK> was created in six days. It's written down so it must be true.
>> damn you!! you have ruined my decade by exposing my beliefs to
>> ridicule. i will have to start using PERL from now on!

JWK> Sure, you can get the latest version at:

JWK> http://search.cpan.org/~jmcnamara/Acme-Inline-PERL-0.01/

damn you x 2!! now you just gave more ammunition to the PERL crowd. they
will use the existance of a cpan module with PERL in its name as proof
that it is an acceptable form of the name. too bad they will be blind to
the root namespace of this module.

uri

--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

On 2008-04-16, Gordon Etly wrote:
> Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>>> "GE" == Gordon Etly writes:
>>
>>> 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"
>>> ?
>>
>> It does not reflect the usage patterns of the core Perl developers or
>> Perl experts.
>
> I understand that, honestly I do, but that is not what I was asking.
> Quite simply, 'perldoc perl' gives an expansion, and my question is why
> it should be wrong to use "PERL" as a short hand for that expansion,
> since the expansion is found in the official docs?

IMO, it's fine to use PERL as an acronym for "Practical Extraction
and Report Language", but that (PERL) is not the name of a programming
language; rather, it is simply an acronym for
"Practical Extraction and Report Language", which is a description of
the perl executable that shows up via the perl man pages.

Just as it would not make a lot of sense to call gcc (or the C language)
GPCCC (i.e., an acronym for the description that shows up at the top of
the man page:
gcc - GNU project C and C++ compiler
), it also does not make sense to call Perl (or perl) PERL (i.e., an
acronym for the description that shows up at the top of the man page:
perl - Practical Extraction and Report Language
).

But, IMO, it's not very useful to come up with an acronym (i.e., PERL)
for a description of the perl executable (shown via 'man perl'), or for
any (description of an) executable, for that matter.


--

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

On 2008-04-16, Uri Guttman wrote:
>>>>>> "SB" == Stephan Bour writes:
>
> SB> Uri Guttman wrote:
>
> SB> } why don't you just shut up about this already like you said you
>
> SB> If you bothered to read the thread, he replied to someone who
> SB> replied before he did, so why focus this one single individual,
> SB> and waste a perfectly good post displaying you are incapable of
> SB> opening your mind to other possibilities instead of acting as if
> SB> all the FAQs, et al, are carved in granite.
>
> he was continuing when he said he wouldn't. he singled himself out.
>
> SB> } all the people who want to use PERL are those who never help
> SB> } others here.
>
> SB> That's a rather broad statement, don'cha think? There is a certain
> SB> logic in rewriting `Practical Extraction and Report Language` as
> SB> `PERL` which is a common form of writing a term whose characters
> SB> each have a documented meaning, which would appear to be the case.
>
> and did you address my point? do you help people here? i don't recall
> your name on many posts. it is simple. you help with real perl
> questions, you have a right to say stuff about this group.
>
> SB> } when is the last time you posted an answer to any perl
> SB> } questions here? you have no standing in the perl community (here or
> SB> } elsewhere) so why should your opinion matter?
>
> SB> Why should the opinion of a pompous ass who can't even correctly
> SB> use a shift key at the start of a sentence and for proper nouns?
> SB> You don't even write "Perl" properly. Second, wtf makes you the
> SB> one who decides who is allowed to start a discussion? Obviously
> SB> you don't approve of the subject matter, well too bad. I seriously
> SB> doubt you have the necessary information to determine where and if
> SB> someone has any "standing", nor are you any more or less special
> SB> than anyone else so either get with it or kindly stfu.

I just read this paragraph in this post, having skipped it in the
original post. Ironically, it sounds to me a little like it may have
been written by a pompous ass[1].


[1] :-)

--

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

"Gordon Etly" wrote in message
news:66l1e2F2l411pU1@mid.individual.net...
> Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>>> "GE" == Gordon Etly writes:
>>
>>> 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"
>>> ?
>>
>> It does not reflect the usage patterns of the core Perl developers or
>> Perl experts.
>
> I understand that, honestly I do, but that is not what I was asking. Quite
> simply, 'perldoc perl' gives an expansion, and my question is why it
> should be wrong to use "PERL" as a short hand for that expansion, since
> the expansion is found in the official docs?

Because by convention among those in the community, 'perl' refers to the
binary and 'Perl' refers to the language and PERL is a joke and refers to
neither.

If you want to engage with those knowlegeable in a subject, you should adopt
their conventions. If not....your call...

P

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

Jim Cochrane wrote:
> On 2008-04-16, Gordon Etly wrote:
>> Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>>>> "GE" == Gordon Etly writes:
>>>
>>>> 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"
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> It does not reflect the usage patterns of the core Perl developers
>>> or Perl experts.
>>
>> I understand that, honestly I do, but that is not what I was asking.
>> Quite simply, 'perldoc perl' gives an expansion, and my question is
>> why it should be wrong to use "PERL" as a short hand for that
>> expansion, since the expansion is found in the official docs?
>
> IMO, it's fine to use PERL as an acronym for "Practical Extraction
> and Report Language", but that (PERL) is not the name of a programming
> language; rather, it is simply an acronym for
> "Practical Extraction and Report Language", which is a description of
> the perl executable that shows up via the perl man pages.

For the record, I never said it was the name of the language, but,
rather, just as you said about the acronym part :)

Thank you for your understanding.

--
G.Etly

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

Uri Guttman wrote:
} Stephan Bour writes:
} >
} > Uri Guttman wrote:
} >
} > } why don't you just shut up about this already like you said you
} >
} > If you bothered to read the thread, he replied to someone who
} > replied before he did, so why focus this one single individual,
} > and waste a perfectly good post displaying you are incapable of
} > opening your mind to other possibilities instead of acting as if
} > all the FAQs, et al, are carved in granite.
}
} he was continuing when he said he wouldn't. he singled himself out.


So what? He was answering someone else, what concern is it of yours? Is
someone forcing you to read everything that comes down the pipe? Are you
unable to killfile a thread?

} > } all the people who want to use PERL are those who never help
} > } others here.
} >
} > That's a rather broad statement, don'cha think? There is a certain
} > logic in rewriting `Practical Extraction and Report Language` as
} > `PERL` which is a common form of writing a term whose characters
} > each have a documented meaning, which would appear to be the case.
}
} and did you address my point?

I didn't know you had one.

} do you help people here? i don't recall your name on many posts.

That's not what is or was of question, and is utterly irrelevant. Stop
invoking the straw-man.

} it is simple. you help with real perl questions, you have a
} right to say stuff about this group.

And who decides who say what? You? I think not. Everyone has a right to post
in a public news group, and you have no right what so ever to dictate
otherwise.


Stephan.

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

Peter Wyzl wrote:
} "Gordon Etly" wrote in message
} > Charlton Wilbur wrote:
} > > "GE" == Gordon Etly writes:
} > >
} > > > 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"
} > > > ?
} > >
} > > It does not reflect the usage patterns of the core Perl developers
} > > or Perl experts.
} >
} > I understand that, honestly I do, but that is not what I was asking.
} > Quite simply, 'perldoc perl' gives an expansion, and my question is
} > why it should be wrong to use "PERL" as a short hand for that
} > expansion, since the expansion is found in the official docs?
}
} Because by convention among those in the community, 'perl' refers to
} the binary and 'Perl' refers to the language and PERL is a joke and
} refers to neither.

It maybe a joke to *you* but your opinion doesn't change what it says in the
applicable doc. `PERL` very well could correspond with `Practical Extraction
and Report Language`, whether it's a true acronym or as some say, a
backronym [1], it's a shorted form for that description. Everyone who keeps
using the excuse you are is refusing to open their mind to other ideas than
the already established ones.

} If you want to engage with those knowlegeable in a subject, you
} should adopt their conventions. If not....your call...

So, `my way or the hiway`? Are you saying no one may question rules,
conventions, and ideals? Is this really the way you feel a community should
function?


[1]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/backronym
" backronym jargon
" (Backward acronym) A word which has been turned into an acronym
" by inventing an expansion, rather than the other way around.

" n. [portmanteau of back + acronym] A word interpreted as an
" acronym that was not originally so intended.


Stephan.

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

"Stephan Bour" 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'?

jue

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

>>>>> "SB" == Stephan Bour writes:

SB> Uri Guttman wrote:
SB> } Stephan Bour writes:
SB> } >
SB> } > Uri Guttman wrote:
SB> } >
SB> } > } why don't you just shut up about this already like you said you
SB> } >
SB> } > If you bothered to read the thread, he replied to someone who
SB> } > replied before he did, so why focus this one single individual,
SB> } > and waste a perfectly good post displaying you are incapable of
SB> } > opening your mind to other possibilities instead of acting as if
SB> } > all the FAQs, et al, are carved in granite.
SB> }
SB> } he was continuing when he said he wouldn't. he singled himself out.


SB> So what? He was answering someone else, what concern is it of yours? Is
SB> someone forcing you to read everything that comes down the pipe? Are you
SB> unable to killfile a thread?

and you? i am more concerned about proper perl training and answers. so
when i see PERL used, i jump in. i also help out on many other questions
here. do you?

SB> } > } all the people who want to use PERL are those who never help
SB> } > } others here.
SB> } >
SB> } > That's a rather broad statement, don'cha think? There is a certain
SB> } > logic in rewriting `Practical Extraction and Report Language` as
SB> } > `PERL` which is a common form of writing a term whose characters
SB> } > each have a documented meaning, which would appear to be the case.
SB> }
SB> } and did you address my point?

SB> I didn't know you had one.

about your not helping. all you have done is jump in late into a stupid
flame war and on the wrong side.

SB> } do you help people here? i don't recall your name on many posts.

SB> That's not what is or was of question, and is utterly irrelevant. Stop
SB> invoking the straw-man.

well, that shows how much you know. those who help have a say
here. those who don't are not listened too. notice how all the PERL
backers are not regular helpers here? that is the whole point. they
aren't listening to what the community says about the names perl, Perl
and PERL.

SB> } it is simple. you help with real perl questions, you have a
SB> } right to say stuff about this group.

SB> And who decides who say what? You? I think not. Everyone has a
SB> right to post in a public news group, and you have no right what
SB> so ever to dictate otherwise.

that comment is so common among those who never help here. hmm, that
point again! so shut up unless you actually answer perl questions. that
IS the reason for this group. flaming about PERL is not helping.

and i can dictate all i want since i am the ruler of perl in my
household. you want democracy, go learn python!

you have been insulted. please crawl back into your cave and be quiet
now.

uri

--
Uri Guttman ------ uri@stemsystems.com -------- http://www.sysarch.com --
----- Perl Code Review , Architecture, Development, Training, Support ------
--------- Free Perl Training --- http://perlhunter.com/college.html ---------
--------- Gourmet Hot Cocoa Mix ---- http://bestfriendscocoa.com ---------

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

>>>>> "SB" == Stephan Bour writes:

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

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

On 2008-04-16, Uri Guttman wrote:
> damn you x 2!! now you just gave more ammunition to the PERL crowd. they
> will use the existance of a cpan module with PERL in its name as proof
> that it is an acceptable form of the name. too bad they will be blind to
> the root namespace of this module.

I doubt it's clear to those who support PERL what the purpose of the
Acme:: namespace is.

--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

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

Uri Guttman wrote:
} "SB" == Stephan Bour writes:
}
} > Uri Guttman wrote:
} > } Stephan Bour writes:
} > } >
} > } > Uri Guttman wrote:

....
} > } > } all the people who want to use PERL are those who never help
} > } > } others here.
} > } >
} > } > That's a rather broad statement, don'cha think? There is a
} > } > certain logic in rewriting `Practical Extraction and Report
} > } > Language` as `PERL` which is a common form of writing a term
} > } > whose characters each have a documented meaning, which would
} > } > appear to be the case. }
} > } >
} > } and did you address my point?
}
} > I didn't know you had one.
}
} about your not helping. all you have done is jump in late into a
} stupid flame war and on the wrong side.

1) That's not what this is about nor is it a requirement to be able to
comment. All that is required to comment on something is free will, whether
you agree with that or not.

2) It was never a flame way until people like you jumped in and made it one
out of your own distaste for the subject.

....
} so shut up unless you actually answer perl questions.
} that IS the reason for this group. flaming about PERL is not helping.

The only one rubbing sticks together appears to be you, sir. All I saw
coming from Mr. Etly's direction was a simple point. Any form of attack has
been coming from you and some others who side with your point of view. It's
a shame you refuse to see any other views than your own.

} and i can dictate all i want since i am the ruler of perl in my
} household. you want democracy, go learn python!

1) I thought it was `Perl` ? Please make up your mind?

2) A news group is no individuals house. Then again this makes about is much
sense as anything else you spew.


Stephan.

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

Jürgen Exner wrote:
> "Stephan Bour" 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

Re: PERL to mean what "perldoc perl" says is wrong?

On 2008-04-16, Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>> "SB" == Stephan Bour writes:
>
> 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