Re: Number Indicating Participation in London.pm (NIPL) (was: assimilating CPAN)

[Lusercop]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 01:15:06PM +0100, Andy Wardley wrote:
> Earle Martin wrote:
> > I had to drop the Buffy bit. 
> Is that based on the assumption that the bit is redundant, given that anyone 
> whose Buffy bit isn't set can't be a *real* member of London.pm. 
> I'll get my coat then.

I suppose it's a good thing that I'm not a *real* member, then. :-)

-- 
Lusercop.net - LARTing Lusers everywhere since 2002

Re: Something is wrong with my conceptual model of regexes

[Simon Luff]

On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 14:40, Roger Burton West wrote:

[snipped a question that I think others have answered]

> (I know how to _solve_ this; I do
> 
> $foo =~ /([><])[^><]*?$/s;

of course $foo =~ /.*([><])/s would run much quicker, especially on long
strings - assuming your $foo string looks like I expect it to.

regards,
Simon.

Re: OT:Possible job

[S Watkins]

Neil Fryer wrote:

Hi All,

I may know of a job coming up in the very near future, for someone to start
as soon as possible, the salary is going to be in the 30k mark. If there are
any SysAds out there interested, please mail me your CV's.
Like I said though, this isn't definate as of yet, and the sooner the
person
can start the better. This will be a perm psotion, in London's West End.
 

Hello Neil,

I'm interested. Could you keep me in mind/informed if anything does 
come of it? I've attached my CV, in msWord format, to this email. If it 
causes you any grief, get in touch and I'll drop it to some other more 
palatable format.

Cheers,

Steve
=


CV.doc
Description: Binary data

Debugging Tied Hashes

[Raf]

Hi,

I've got a package which subclasses Tied::Hash and am tring to set a break
point on STORE and some other methods which get called thereafter. 
Strangely, the debugger doesn't seem step through these when I tie a hash
and store a value.  I'd really like to be able to do this, so I was hoping
that someone might be able to clue me in?  Can you debug methods within a
package which you've tied your hash to?  btw, I'm using 5.6.1.

Cheers,

Rafiq

Re: 501 Not Implemented

[Patrick Mulvany]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 02:04:04AM +0100, Ben wrote:
> Ah, you see, this isn't a page which a browser would ever see. It's an 
> application that I POST some XML to, and it gives me back another XML
> document based on what I send it. I have a document which describes how
> this thing is supposed to work, and it doesn't behave the way it's
> supposed to.
> 
> If I send it garbage, well-formed but invalid XML or correctly formed 
> but incorrect XML, then I get an error message. If I send it something 
> correct, I get a 501 and no return document. Which is why I think it
> shouldn't be the transfer-coding or anything else. It clearly *can*
> interpret my requests, as it knows what incorrect ones look like.  
> 
> > Best bet it to browse it while capturing the datastream. 
> > Then you really know what it will accept rather that what you 
> > thought it needed. Then you can backout to a minimum data request.
> 
> I've tried that. Same behaviour in the browser. I'm now pretty sure the
> problem is with them, but the only contacts I have are non-technical. I
> tried asking for someone technical's email address and got told that my
> existing contact would be happy to answer my questions, which *really* 
> isn't what I wanted.
>

Can they provided you with a working test example. They must surely have one for their 
own internal use if nothing else. Failing a test example, a capture of the datastream 
they generate durring their tests would do. 

You just know that it is going to be something they have missed or is ambiguous in 
their spec. (ie the failed to mention it require DOS line endings)

If people refuse to give you access to a technical contact I have generally found that 
asking a complex technical question will get you one of three resposes.
 1. The I don't know what you are talking about.
 2. I will pass it on and nothing happens
 3. Someone else contacts you.

Having this kind of problem with a data supplier at the moment. They have decided to 
change the data format they are using and have given everyone 2 months to get there 
systems working with the new data.

When they provided test data it was the most simplistic cases. It appears they don't 
really understand the complexity and implications of their own changes.

Hope it helps

Paddy
 

Re: Going to Pub Tommorow (Thursday) Night

[Tim Sweetman]

Greg McCarroll wrote:
* Robert Shiels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:

From: "Greg McCarroll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Some of us (Kake and I, and maybe others) are going to the pub tommorow
(thursday) night, we will be there from earlyish to lateish. The pub
that has been choosen after much careful thought is,
http://grault.net/cgi-bin/grubstreet.pl?Anchor_Bankside,_SE1_9EF

Oooh, there is a direct train from Wallington to London Bridge, and it's
payday tomorrow. Would serendipity be the correct word?


Yes, and much better than golgotha that would be a pretty shit word.
*exasperated* you people. If it's not in a movie it's not worth knowing 
about, is it?

--
ti'

Re: Debugging Tied Hashes - PLEASE IGNORE LAST POST

[Raf]

I set up squirrel mail recently and my MAIL FROM got set by default to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Since I'm actually registered on the list using
joshua.dreamthought.com, this appears to be the first version of my post
(now answered), which got stuck in the moderation queue.

Apologies for the clutter.

R.

Raf said:
> Hi,
>
> I've got a package which subclasses Tied::Hash and am tring to set a
> break point on STORE and some other methods which get called thereafter.
>  Strangely, the debugger doesn't seem step through these when I tie a
> hash and store a value.  I'd really like to be able to do this, so I was
> hoping that someone might be able to clue me in?  Can you debug methods
> within a package which you've tied your hash to?  btw, I'm using 5.6.1.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rafiq

request for crash space

[Jody Belka]

i could really do with getting out of birmingham for a bit (yeah, i know i
only just got back, but who cares).

with the tim o'reilly thing on monday and the emergency meet on wednesday
i was thinking if i could find crash space for [at least] monday to
wednesday of next week that would be good for scratching this particular
itch (and it's been too long since i've been down anyway, for various
reasons)

so..anyone willing to donate some space on one or more of those days?


Jody

Re: Going to Pub Tommorow (Thursday) Night

[David H. Adler]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 11:22:12AM +0100, Tim Sweetman wrote:
> Greg McCarroll wrote:
> >* Robert Shiels ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> >>From: "Greg McCarroll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>>Some of us (Kake and I, and maybe others) are going to the pub tommorow
> >>>(thursday) night, we will be there from earlyish to lateish. The pub
> >>>that has been choosen after much careful thought is,
> >>>
> >>>http://grault.net/cgi-bin/grubstreet.pl?Anchor_Bankside,_SE1_9EF
> >>>
> >>
> >>Oooh, there is a direct train from Wallington to London Bridge, and it's
> >>payday tomorrow. Would serendipity be the correct word?
> >>
> >
> >
> >Yes, and much better than golgotha that would be a pretty shit word.
> 
> *exasperated* you people. If it's not in a movie it's not worth knowing 
> about, is it?

There's something other than movies?  *gasp*

:-)

-- 
David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
For the Forth aficionados reading this column, I offer my idea of the
ideal bumper sticker:  "YOU FORTH LOVE IF HONK THEN."
 - Chip Salzenberg, in The Perl Journal #12

Re: Going to Pub Tommorow (Thursday) Night

[Tim Sweetman]

David H. Adler wrote:

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 11:22:12AM +0100, Tim Sweetman wrote:
 

*exasperated* you people. If it's not in a movie it's not worth knowing 
about, is it?
   

There's something other than movies?  *gasp*

:-)

So much for paraphrasing from memory.

*Metatron (Alan Rickman) *: You 
people! If it hasn't been made into a movie, it's not worth knowing 
about, is that it?

http://uk.imdb.com/Quotes?0120655

--
ti'

Re: Going to Pub Tommorow (Thursday) Night

[David H. Adler]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 09:46:50PM +0100, Tim Sweetman wrote:
> David H. Adler wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 11:22:12AM +0100, Tim Sweetman wrote:
> > 
> >
> >>*exasperated* you people. If it's not in a movie it's not worth knowing 
> >>about, is it?
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >There's something other than movies?  *gasp*
> >
> >:-)
> >
> So much for paraphrasing from memory.
> 
> *Metatron (Alan Rickman) *: You 
> people! If it hasn't been made into a movie, it's not worth knowing 
> about, is that it?

The question is, did you quote that *because* of the reference to
golgotha, or was that just a coincidence...

dha
-- 
David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
"I think I'd better sit down."
"You are sitting down."
"Oh.  Good for me." - BtVS, "Welcome to the Hellmouth"

Re: Going to Pub Tommorow (Thursday) Night

[the hatter]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, David H. Adler wrote:

> > *Metatron (Alan Rickman) *: You
> > people! If it hasn't been made into a movie, it's not worth knowing
> > about, is that it?
>
> The question is, did you quote that *because* of the reference to
> golgotha, or was that just a coincidence...

I'm guessing that the golgotha line was because it was a followup to a
post mentioning serendipity, which then really left no choice but a 3rd
line from the same source.


the hatter

Re: Going to Pub Tommorow (Thursday) Night

[Natalie Ford]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 21:46:50 +0100, Tim Sweetman wrote:
> *Metatron (Alan Rickman) *: You 
> people! If it hasn't been made into a movie, it's not worth knowing 
> about, is that it?
> http://uk.imdb.com/Quotes?0120655

*Brilliant* movie.  I am still surprised by the number of people that did 
not realise the true gender of god.  and the casting was classic.  i 
really must get around to watching all the other DVD's in the series...

-- 
Natalie S. Ford   .   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.natalie.ourshack.org    http://natalief.livejournal.com

Re: Going to Pub Tommorow (Thursday) Night

[Tim Sweetman]

the hatter wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, David H. Adler wrote:

 

*Metatron (Alan Rickman) *: You
people! If it hasn't been made into a movie, it's not worth knowing
about, is that it?
 

The question is, did you quote that *because* of the reference to
golgotha, or was that just a coincidence...
   

I'm guessing that the golgotha line was because it was a followup to a
post mentioning serendipity, which then really left no choice but a 3rd
line from the same source.
Yup.

Especially because "serendipity" is a (fairly) common concept for 
coincidences and assorted entities that are not selma hayek. So if 
someone says "serendipity" and a bunch of neurons labelled "Dogma" light 
up, Metatron (Rickman)'s rant is very relevant.

(It wouldn't have worked if the golgothae turned up first, because shitd 
are not as useful or frequently installed as serendipity). (You could 
probably count google hits for each. I would, but apathy forbids).

To paraphrase the matrix - "Do not try and bend geek culture. That's 
impossible. Instead... only try to realize [sic] the truth... There is 
no geek culture".

--
ti'