On 19 Mar 2003 at 14:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[sending attachments as UUEncoded to work around auto-HTML MSexChange
misfeature]
> Well, I've tried that with this message...
Looks good to me.
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Philip Newton has the answer?
> Here's a very non-elegant, but effective (at least, it was for me),
> workaround:
>
> when you have an email message open, choose File | Properties
> (or press
> Alt+Enter), then "sending options", then the "Internet" tab (if it
> isn't already selected), then
[Apologies for coming into this discussion so late]
On 10 Mar 2003 at 2:00, Dave Cross wrote:
> From: "Blackwell, Lee [IT]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 3/10/03 9:51:14 AM
>
> >> first let me apologise, I know this mail will be
> >> accompanied by an HTML version & I don't know how to
> >> prev
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 04:34:39PM +, Jasper McCrea wrote:
> Nicholas Clark wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 04:04:54PM +, Jasper McCrea wrote:
> > > If $_ isn't too big, the latter is probably more efficient. I said probably.
> >
> > use Benchmark; # Recent experience with writin
Jasper McCrea ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I agree. Pub good. (But I'd rather spend the time breeding crabsticks)
That was an obscure reference to Harry Hill, for those who don't have
to suffer a flatmate with zany TV taste. OK, I have to admit it was
pretty funny...
Nicholas Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 04:04:54PM +, Jasper McCrea wrote:
> > The /g just removes the need for parantheses in the regex. ie
> >
> > ($bar) = /(foo)/
> >
> > is equivalent to:
> >
> > ($bar) = /foo/g
> >
> > If $_ isn't too big, the latter is probably more efficient.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 04:04:54PM +, Jasper McCrea wrote:
> The /g just removes the need for parantheses in the regex. ie
>
> ($bar) = /(foo)/
>
> is equivalent to:
>
> ($bar) = /foo/g
>
> If $_ isn't too big, the latter is probably more efficient. I said probably.
use Benchmark; # Rece
Paul Makepeace wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:30:53PM +, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:24:43PM +, Joel Bernstein wrote:
> > > > while () {
> > > > if (my ( $code ) = /$rxp/g) {
> > > if ( my ($code) =~ /$rxp/g ) ... surely? ie, s/=/=~/
> >
> > That's no
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:44:00AM +, Mark Fowler wrote:
> People could always offer to help the Siesta project to get it to a state
> where we could use it to run all the London.pm mail. Then doing things
> like this is quite straight forward.
What does Siesta still need done in order to be
On Monday 10 March 2003 13:31, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> ($foo) = 'foo boo moo' =~ /\w+/g;
> print "$foo\n";
> foo
ahh ! .. now I have to confess I didn't know that! well well ... one lives
and learns.
--
Robin Szemeti
On Monday 10 March 2003 12:54, Lusercop wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:16:18AM +, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> > > /g evaluated in a list context causes =~ to return a list of all
> > > bracketed submatches. That's what causes =~ to have an appropriate
> > > return value for assigning to a list
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:33:48PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> to David Cantrell's bemusement
> > > Still, it's Lent, humility and no alchohol the order of the 40 days.
> >
> > Are you sure you're on the right list?
>
> o yes. You've all been very helpful. It's almost a shame I'm leaving fo
Title: RE: regrouping lines of STDIN - Outlook does what it wants
to David Cantrell's bemusement
> > Still, it's Lent, humility and no alchohol the order of the 40 days.
>
> Are you sure you're on the right list?
o yes. You've all been very helpful. It'
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:21:19PM +, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> no no my pretty little vampire slayer ... its not the /g that determines list
> or scalar evaluation of the regex ... its what is wanted by the caller. I
> suspect it is not entirely unconnected with #perldoc -f wantarray ...
>
> m
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:42:51AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Still, it's Lent, humility and no alchohol the order of the 40 days.
Are you sure you're on the right list?
--
David Cantrell | Member of the Brute Squad | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david
There are many different types o
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 11:16:18AM +, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> On Monday 10 March 2003 10:08, Lusercop wrote:
> > what on earth made you write your paragraph above. Shevek makes it quite
> > clear that this is the case.
> well ... my reading of the original hang on .. quote time:
> > /g evaluate
Title: RE: regrouping lines of STDIN - Outlook does what it wants
Joel, reassuringly,
> one... In other words, sending MIME-encoded mail with html
> and plaintext
> versions should just DTRT in most clients.
I'll stop apologising then. It still keeps me out of some mailing
> Alternatively, we could run something like demime to strip out all
> non-text/plain parts, but that will probably break PGP signing and
> stuff.
No, as that's subtly different. The PGP signature is a normal attachment,
whereas html mail uses multipart/alternative etc to indicate that this is
a
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:07:16AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Thanks Lee,
>
> > Outlook->Tools/Options/Mail format tab/Send in this message
> > format = Plain
> > text
>
>but no. This message is plain text by that method, enjoy...
It would seem that Outhouse is taking your "send as Plain
On Monday 10 March 2003 10:08, Lusercop wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:21:19PM +, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> > On Sunday 09 March 2003 15:10, Shevek wrote:
> > > /g evaluated in a list context causes =~ to return a list of all
> > > bracketed
>
> ^^ note: no "is
Lusercop wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:21:19PM +, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> > On Sunday 09 March 2003 15:10, Shevek wrote:
> > > /g evaluated in a list context causes =~ to return a list of all bracketed
> ^^ note: no "is"
> > no no my pretty little vampire
Title: RE: regrouping lines of STDIN - Outlook does what it wants
Thanks Lee,
> Outlook->Tools/Options/Mail format tab/Send in this message
> format = Plain
> text
but no. This message is plain text by that method, enjoy...
Tom SW
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 07:21:19PM +, Robin Szemeti wrote:
> On Sunday 09 March 2003 15:10, Shevek wrote:
> > /g evaluated in a list context causes =~ to return a list of all bracketed
^^ note: no "is"
> no no my pretty little vampire slayer ... its not the /g th
From: "Blackwell, Lee [IT]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 3/10/03 9:51:14 AM
>> first let me apologise, I know this mail will be
>> accompanied by an HTML version & I don't know how to
>> prevent it. Outlook swears I'm using plain text but
>> somehow it doesn't end up that way. So, sorry...
>
> Ou
> first let me apologise, I know this mail will be accompanied by an
> HTML version & I don't know how to prevent it. Outlook swears I'm
> using plain text but somehow it doesn't end up that way. So, sorry...
Outlook->Tools/Options/Mail format tab/Send in this message format = Plain
text
That's
On Sunday 09 March 2003 15:10, Shevek wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> > my ($code) = $_ =~ /a (reg) ex/;
> >
> > I'm not clear on the point of the /g though.
>
> /g evaluated in a list context causes =~ to return a list of all bracketed
> submatches. That's what causes =~ to
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 03:10:06PM +, Shevek wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Paul Makepeace wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:30:53PM +, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:24:43PM +, Joel Bernstein wrote:
> > > > > while () {
> > > > > if (my ( $co
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:30:53PM +, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:24:43PM +, Joel Bernstein wrote:
> > > > while () {
> > > > if (my ( $code ) = /$rxp/g) {
> > > if ( my ($code) =~ /$rxp/g ) ... surely?
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 02:30:53PM +, Andrew Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:24:43PM +, Joel Bernstein wrote:
> > > while () {
> > > if (my ( $code ) = /$rxp/g) {
> > if ( my ($code) =~ /$rxp/g ) ... surely? ie, s/=/=~/
>
> That's not a substution, it's assigning the res
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:59:41PM +, Joel Bernstein wrote:
> it's a unicode character which likes buffy.
Is that sort of like a fictional character?
--
$x='4a75737420616e6f74686572205065726c'#Earle Martin
.'206861636b65720d0a';for(0..26){print #http://downl
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:24:43PM +, Joel Bernstein wrote:
> > while () {
> > if (my ( $code ) = /$rxp/g) {
> if ( my ($code) =~ /$rxp/g ) ... surely? ie, s/=/=~/
That's not a substution, it's assigning the result of the pattern match
to $code. /$rxp/g is matching against $_ not
> "Luis" == Luis Campos de Carvalho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Luis> # I think you should rewrite this:
Luis> # > push @{ $seen{$code} } , $_;
Luis> # Like this:
Luis> if( exists $seen{$code} ){
Luis> # I already used this array ref...
Luis>
> "TSchutzerWeissmann" == TSchutzerWeissmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TSchutzerWeissmann> Hi Luis,
TSchutzerWeissmann> ...
>> Looks like a hashtable algorithm... just curious. =-]
TSchutzerWeissmann> don't know what one of those is...
TSchutzerWeissmann> ...
>> # First time for this array
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:56:50PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>But I think I can do this on the command-line with sort, somehow, all I want
>to do is sort on the 24th to 26th character of every line, instead of the
>whole thing.
sort +.23 -25
(character numbering starts at 0)
Roger
Title: RE: regrouping lines of STDIN
> Dunno, it displays as 3 characters on my screen. Maybe "mbm"
> is a funny
> foreign multi-byte character that's sometimes difficult for
> others to get
> to grips with.
>
>
> the hatter
>
>
yes, mor
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:47:36PM +, the hatter wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Lusercop wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:25:29PM +, Joel Bernstein wrote:
> > > Ahh, so that's what he meant. Yeah. what mbm said
> > ^^^
> > who's this
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Lusercop wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:25:29PM +, Joel Bernstein wrote:
> > Ahh, so that's what he meant. Yeah. what mbm said
> ^^^
> who's this "mbm" character?
Dunno, it displays as 3 characters on my screen. Mayb
Title: RE: regrouping lines of STDIN -> hashtable algorithm?
Hi Luis,
...
> Looks like a hashtable algorithm... just curious. =-]
don't know what one of those is...
...
> # First time for this array ref...
> $seen{$code} = [ $_ ];
yup, [ ] was what
Title: RE: regrouping lines of STDIN
Lusercop points out
> > for (%seen) {
> ^ "values %seen" is more likely what you want here.
Of course! I was far too caught up with making the array ref in the first place (well, it's exciting the first few ti
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 10:03 AM
> Hello London.pm
>
> first let me apologise, [...] an HTML version [...]
Don't worry about this.
Can anybody please send a
no-more-than-twenty-chars-HTML-filtering-perl-script to Mr. Schutzer?
>
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:25:29PM +, Joel Bernstein wrote:
> Ahh, so that's what he meant. Yeah. what mbm said
^^^
who's this "mbm" character?
:-)
--
Lusercop.net - LARTing Lusers everywhere since 2002
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:20:42PM +, Lusercop wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:03:33PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > for (%seen) {
> ^ "values %seen" is more likely what you want here.
> >
> > It won't work with strict because I get "Can't use string ("AA") as an ARR
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:03:33PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello London.pm
>
> first let me apologise, I know this mail will be accompanied by an HTML
> version & I don't know how to prevent it. Outlook swears I'm using plain
> text but somehow it doesn't end up that way. So, sorry...
>
On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 01:03:33PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> for (%seen) {
^ "values %seen" is more likely what you want here.
>
> It won't work with strict because I get "Can't use string ("AA") as an ARRAY
> ref while "strict refs" in use." How do I use a proper array
44 matches
Mail list logo
