On Wed, Aug 01, 2001 at 02:13:53AM +0200, Abigail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Minor and irrelevant details. The principle, a nest of a bare block
> and a compound block to be able to use loop control is straight from
> perlsyn.pod. Not once, not twice, but three times.
Not once. No matter how often you repeat it, it's not "straight from
the docs", it's not "explained clearly". If it were explained clearly,
why does perlsyn actually say that your example is wrong? Because of
extraordinary clearness?
The examples explain how to use statement modifiers and how to make statement
modifiers work. They do neither talk about context nor do they explain what
your example does. The examples explain something differently and the
examples in the docs state clearly that your example is not going to work.
Why? Because it explains something totally different.
Saying "straight from the docs" can either mean "copy & paste" or "as
described in the docs". Neither is true here, not once, not twice and not
three times.
You can insist on you being right as much as you want, but twisting and
misquoting manpages will not prove your point.
> Straight from the docs doesn't mean "you can cut-and-paste" - it just
> means you find the principle explained clearly - without having to
> construct it from smaller blocks.
That principle isn't explained there at all. "A" principle is explained
there, but why are you (mis-)quoting unrelated parts of documentation
then? I really suggets reviewing the discussion.
(I won't follow this thread further).
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
