develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from September 2013

Re: [perl #120047] perl should enable "$_" for use before callingsubs

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Lukas Mai
Date:
September 30, 2013 05:19
Subject:
Re: [perl #120047] perl should enable "$_" for use before callingsubs
Message ID:
524909CF.9080101@gmail.com
On 30.09.2013 05:38, Linda Walsh via RT wrote:
> On Sun Sep 29 18:26:14 2013, LeonT wrote: 
>> You're asking for other people's help,
> ---
> I am?  I thought I was volunteering engineer design to fix problems -- I
> don't have any insurmountable bugs on my plate right now.  I don't have
> anything that needs fixing for my programs to work.

As far as I can tell, you're alone with your opinion of what it is
you're doing. From what I've seen a few people tolerate you because
occasionally you find a real bug in perl.

>> That's> incredibly rude; I don't understand how you expect 
>> people to help you this  way.
> ---
>    The only time I need help is when perl is undebuggable except by
> going into gdb.  I don't have enough knowledge about perl internals to
> be very productive at that point.  
> 
> But lets take a look at the help I've been given.  I find a bug in
> perl's I/O, and is it considered worth of getting a patch -- nope.  I
> can upgrade[sic] to the latest unstable if I want it.
> 
> I ask where a patch is and am given a git version that pulls the entire
> tree and I'm supposed to go looking for what was patched among 1000's of
> lines of changes?  Vs. I use a generic name for a print.  All you have
> to do is s/P/..insert your stuff here/.. it's not like you can run it
> without putting it in a file == and 2 lines converts it all to
> Datadumper output like Ricardo wanted.

Heh. And why would I do that? Converting code takes effort. Presumably
you want to convince other people (e.g. that there's a bug in perl, or
that a new feature would make sense, etc.). If that's the case, you
should make your message as easy to understand as possible. (If not, why
bother?)

And if it's really so easy to convert, why not do that once on your end
before you send the bug report? I'm certainly not going to go through
your code, puzzle out what you could have meant by 'P', then manually
replace it by other code that may or may not do what you wanted to
demonstrate.

> So lets see, you see nothing wrong with me looking through 1000's of
> changes for your change, but me having you add 2 lines of code is being
> rude?  ... !??!??

I have literally no idea what this is about but I bet it's you
misunderstanding something.

> Then you chime in with this gem:
>  
>> Worse yet, you come with this madness, or is it mockery, about including P
>> in core. You're being unreasonable and ridiculous beyond words right now.
> -----
>     That you believe that to be the case is reflective of your really
> screwed attitude regarding anything I might have touched.  That I might
> be serious isn't something that even would enter into your mind.

No, I think you're completely serious about this, hence I favor the
"madness" interpretation over "mockery".

> That
> someone might take that as being completely offensive is likely not even
> something you would consider.  The fact that I have 1 routine that
> replaces sprint, print, say, printf for 99% of my purposes irritates the
> hell out of you doesn't it?

No, why would it? What you do in the privacy of your home is none of my
business. The problem is that you're trying to force it on everyone else.

> That you wouldn't want it in core because
> it hilights design inconsistencies and problems in sprintf, printf, &
> say, at least, and how the recommended data dumper is like using a Nuke
> when you want to swat a bug.

OK, you've made me actually look at P (the module).

It looks hilariously bad on all levels: design, documentation
(missing/wrong/bad content, spelling, formatting), code, indentation,
formatting, general understanding of perl. (In my quick skim I only
found one feature that directly contradicts the documentation but there
may be more.)

> If you want P to just be there, then you are asking for it to be in
> CORE.  I'm just sayin'.

I don't think anyone wants P to just be there.

This will probably be my last reply for the immediate future. Seeing
P.pm has convinced me that you're not as good at software engineering or
design as you think and that I can safely ignore any feature requests or
proposed changes in functionality from you.


-- 
Lukas Mai <plokinom@gmail.com>

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About