Re: London.pm Dim sum Thursday 1pm: Chinese Experience

[Léon Brocard]

2008/10/6 Léon Brocard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> The Chinese Experience
> 118 Shaftesbury Avenue
> Soho, W1D 5EP
> Leicester Square Tube Station
> http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=W1D5EP
> http://www.timeout.com/london/restaurants/reviews/7933.html

This is today. Who's coming?

Leon

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Philippe Bruhat (BooK)]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 01:39:02AM +0100, Iain Barnett wrote:
> 
> Why keep in a load 
> of stuff just because it was there in version 4 and just because a (new 
> language) version called Perl6 may be completed soon.

The answer to that is "to make sure programs written with an older Perl
will work with a new Perl". Compare with PHP.

The first time I heard of a Perl program being broken by an upgrade,
it was a Perl 4 program (used by the Haskell compilation toolchain or
something) that used the long-deprecated $* variable. When it went away
in 5.10, the program broke.

-- 
 Philippe Bruhat (BooK)

 The more destruction we spread, the more we destroy ourselves.
(Moral from Groo #12 (Image))

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Andy Wardley]

Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote:

  my $foo = $a + $b;


The meaning of '+' is already known to most people so there's no cognitive
overhead there.


One of the things _I_ like about Perl is that it accepts the fact that
larger alphabets yield shorter sentences.


I get what you're saying, and agree to some extent.  But you've missed out the
words from the linguistic analogy.

Larger alphabets like Japanese, for example, do indeed yield shorter
sentences.  However, they are inscrutable to anyone who hasn't spent several
years studying the characters in the alphabet to learn what they all mean.

Languages with smaller alphabets like English and other Latin-derived
languages are also able to yield small sentences, but they do so by having
large lexicons.  Instead of inventing new characters to represent new
concepts, we take the existing alphabet and make new wordicles and
speaklets from them, quite noproblematically.  In the extreme case,
languages like German are fromseveralwordswholesentencemakers (*cough*
Java *cough*).

So shorter sentences are yielded by having symbols that represent semantic
concepts that are otherwise difficult to express by the fact that they require
more elaborate sentence construction.  Or, more succinctly: symbols confer
meaning.  The number of character in the symbol and the  alphabet in which it
is written are less important than the fact that it exists in the first place.

What this comes down to is that "@a ~~ @b" and "@a like @b" (for example)
are both significantly shorter than writing out the equivalent code in full.
The fact that "like" is 2 characters (but only one keypress) longer than '~~'
is, to me, largely irrelevant because I've reduced a whole block of messy code
into one expression comprised of a mere 3 symbols.

I'm sure that in time my branebox will come to recognise '~~' and "just read
it" the way that it currently "just reads" the word "like" and knows what
it means.  But even then, I might still prefer to write "like" (or "matches"
or something similar) for the sake of any other non-Perl6 speaking visitors
I might have dropping in on my code.  It reads like a sentence instead of
looking like a graffiti tag.


Perl isn't afraid to use
symbols if it means they tend to give shorter statements that are quicker
to read or write.


I like short too.  Succinct is good, but cryptic isn't.  IMHO, Perl should
be choosing more words for those symbols instead of choosing new letters to
add to the alphabet.

YMMV, of course.

A

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Philippe Bruhat (BooK)]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 12:59:37AM +0100, Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote:
> 
> I suppose this is a little unfair, since my brain is sortof wired to
> understand perl and English. Perhaps a better comparison may be
> 
>   my $foo = $a + $b[5];
> 
> and
> 
>   add scalar a to the fifth element of array b and assign to new scalar
> foo
> 

You mean sixth. :-)

-- 
 Philippe Bruhat (BooK)

 When you do not think for yourself, no one thinks for you...
(Moral from Groo The Wanderer #61 (Epic))

Re: MVC (Re: DBIx::Class - Related Tables)

[Simon Cozens]

Randy J. Ray wrote:
> Izzat the one what has to do with not getting into a land war in Asia or
> a battle of wits with a Sicilian[*]?

I think the quote is actually something like "Never go in against a
Sicilian when death is on the line"; I always used to think it was about
chess.

-- 
 Remember: amateurs built the Ark; _professionals_ built the
Titantic.

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Paul Makepeace]

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Peter Corlett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 12:59:37AM +0100, Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote:
> [...]
>> I suppose this is a little unfair, since my brain is sortof wired to
>> understand perl and English. Perhaps a better comparison may be
>>   my $foo = $a + $b[5];
>> and
>>   add scalar a to the fifth element of array b and assign to new scalar
>> foo
>
> The latter might be useful when explaining a facet of the language, but once
> you get real code, pages of it will make you want to spork your eyes out.
>
> If you don't believe me, read this:
>
> www.foo.be/docs/tpj/issues/vol5_3/tpj0503-0013.html

Elements of both sides of the argument here are leaning heavily on
extremism to make their point. Some kind of middle ground is probably
onto a winner in terms of least-annoying-to-all; what then is left is
arguing over personal preference (i.e. a bit pointless, but fun).

As an anecdotal single data point.. I've been programming Perl as my
main language since '94 and within 2yrs of exposure to python I'd say
_purely from an aesthetic point of view_ I prefer reading python. In
other words despite having 10+yrs to get used to perl, python's
appearance seems more pleasant to me. I really think it's struck a
good balance of expressiveness and language-naturalness in terms of
appearance.

(FWIW, PHP's seems like a huge mess, visually.)

P

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Iain Barnett]

On 9 Oct 2008, at 11:51 am, Andy Armstrong wrote:


On 9 Oct 2008, at 01:39, Iain Barnett wrote:

if $a ~~ $b #this could mean several things


A smart match between two scalars. Clear.


if $a in $b #it is clear what this means


One scalar is in another? WTF?


What does smart match do if you pass it an array/hash/object ref? If  
it matches against the scalar part then it's not a very smart match,  
IMO.






if a in b   #this is even better IMO



Dunno what a and b are - so who knows what it does?

Which is not, of course, to say that you're wrong - but that  
readability is - to some extent - in the eye of the beholder.


--
Andy Armstrong, Hexten



The "in" implies that "b" is a collection of some sort and "a" is a  
single value of the type that b is holding.


Iain

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Iain Barnett]

On 9 Oct 2008, at 12:27 pm, Jonathan Stowe wrote:


2008/10/9 Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

On 9 Oct 2008, at 01:39, Iain Barnett wrote:







if a in b   #this is even better IMO




I think this is the previous without *any* "funny characters". Y'know
like python or cobol or C


or Ruby or Haskell, or C# or Java, or CLisp...  it might be better to  
list languages that do prefix funny (non-required[1]) characters to  
variables (usually)


Iain

[1] Except for those who are running scripts from the last millenium  
and haven't learnt how to add a version number to the perl executable ;)

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Iain Barnett]

On 9 Oct 2008, at 12:40 pm, Jonathan Stowe wrote:


2008/10/9 Iain Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


On 9 Oct 2008, at 11:51 am, Andy Armstrong wrote:


On 9 Oct 2008, at 01:39, Iain Barnett wrote:


if $a ~~ $b #this could mean several things


A smart match between two scalars. Clear.


if $a in $b #it is clear what this means


One scalar is in another? WTF?


What does smart match do if you pass it an array/hash/object ref?  
If it
matches against the scalar part then it's not a very smart match,  
IMO.




Right, it was however unclear from your example what the contents of
the two variables were.

It will of course dereference a hash or array ref if appropriate.  I'm
not quite sure what you are proposing it should do when presented with
a blessed reference.


Well, my point was that "in" describes to the reader exactly what the  
writer wanted to do whereas using smart match can only be determined  
by the computer at run time or by me with a lot of scrolling and  
scanning (and probably headscratching). It's ambiguousity versus  
clarity :-)


 It also (quite nicely) shows how outdated the need for $ or @ is,  
since every type can be held in a scalar (and I quite frequently end  
up changing everything to references anyway) - why not just kill off  
the funny characters? Unless of course, you think that @b tells the  
reader more about the program, which then supports the need for an  
"in" as well as ~~.


Personally, I'd prefer to check the type against either it's  
signature (roll on Perl6) or where it was defined (or even better, in  
my IDE with little or no effort on my part, but that's another no no  
in the perl world)


I've no idea what smart match should do when confronted with an  
object - check against each value in it's hash? It's the smart one,  
not me! :_)


Iain

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Jonathan Stowe]

2008/10/9 Iain Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 9 Oct 2008, at 11:51 am, Andy Armstrong wrote:
>
>> On 9 Oct 2008, at 01:39, Iain Barnett wrote:
>>>
>>> if $a ~~ $b #this could mean several things
>>
>> A smart match between two scalars. Clear.
>>
>>> if $a in $b #it is clear what this means
>>
>> One scalar is in another? WTF?
>
> What does smart match do if you pass it an array/hash/object ref? If it
> matches against the scalar part then it's not a very smart match, IMO.
>

Right, it was however unclear from your example what the contents of
the two variables were.

It will of course dereference a hash or array ref if appropriate.  I'm
not quite sure what you are proposing it should do when presented with
a blessed reference.

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Rafael Garcia-Suarez]

2008/10/9 Iain Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I've no idea what smart match should do when confronted with an object -
> check against each value in it's hash? It's the smart one, not me! :_)

Check if the ~~ operator is overloaded and call it, of course.

Re: MVC (Re: DBIx::Class - Related Tables)

[Philippe Bruhat (BooK)]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 05:24:59PM +0900, Simon Cozens wrote:
> Randy J. Ray wrote:
> > Izzat the one what has to do with not getting into a land war in Asia or
> > a battle of wits with a Sicilian[*]?
> 
> I think the quote is actually something like "Never go in against a
> Sicilian when death is on the line"; I always used to think it was about
> chess.

The great worldwide encyclopedia that is the Internet says the quote is:

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is
"Never get involved in a land war in Asia." But only slightly less
well known is this: "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is
on the line."

-- 
 Philippe Bruhat (BooK)

 When it is time for voting-  / In the West or in the East-
 Why must we always settle for-   / The man we hate the least?
(Intro poem to Groo The Wanderer #108 (Epic))

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Peter Corlett]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 12:12:19PM +0100, Iain Barnett wrote:
[...]
> Personally, I think Haskell has a very pleasant, uncluttered syntax. I
> just wish I could do something practical with it! :)

FWIW, functional programming made a lot more sense once I saw the code to a
FTP server written in Erlang. Or at least I learned how to write Perl in
Erlang.

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Peter Corlett]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 12:59:37AM +0100, Paul LeoNerd Evans wrote:
[...]
> I suppose this is a little unfair, since my brain is sortof wired to
> understand perl and English. Perhaps a better comparison may be
>   my $foo = $a + $b[5];
> and
>   add scalar a to the fifth element of array b and assign to new scalar
> foo

The latter might be useful when explaining a facet of the language, but once
you get real code, pages of it will make you want to spork your eyes out.

If you don't believe me, read this:

www.foo.be/docs/tpj/issues/vol5_3/tpj0503-0013.html

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Dirk Koopman]

Jonathan Stowe wrote:

2008/10/9 Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

On 9 Oct 2008, at 01:39, Iain Barnett wrote:



if a in b   #this is even better IMO


I think this is the previous without *any* "funny characters". Y'know
like python or cobol or C



One presumes that this sort of thing:-

my @l;

foreach my $l (@l) {
   ...
}

is now (even more) deprecated by the perl thought police?

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Andy Armstrong]

On 9 Oct 2008, at 01:39, Iain Barnett wrote:

if $a ~~ $b #this could mean several things


A smart match between two scalars. Clear.


if $a in $b #it is clear what this means


One scalar is in another? WTF?


if a in b   #this is even better IMO



Dunno what a and b are - so who knows what it does?

Which is not, of course, to say that you're wrong - but that  
readability is - to some extent - in the eye of the beholder.


--
Andy Armstrong, Hexten

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Jonathan Stowe]

2008/10/9 Dirk Koopman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jonathan Stowe wrote:
>>
>> 2008/10/9 Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>> On 9 Oct 2008, at 01:39, Iain Barnett wrote:
>>
 if a in b   #this is even better IMO
>>
>> I think this is the previous without *any* "funny characters". Y'know
>> like python or cobol or C
>>
>
> One presumes that this sort of thing:-
>
> my @l;
>
> foreach my $l (@l) {
>   ...
> }
>
> is now (even more) deprecated by the perl thought police?
>

Nah, it's not the "perl thought police" you have to worry about with
that one - it's the radical functional programming fifth columnists
posing as otherwise respectable members of the perl community ...

/J\

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Iain Barnett]

On 9 Oct 2008, at 2:36 pm, Jonathan Stowe wrote:


2008/10/9 Dirk Koopman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

Jonathan Stowe wrote:


2008/10/9 Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


On 9 Oct 2008, at 01:39, Iain Barnett wrote:



if a in b   #this is even better IMO


I think this is the previous without *any* "funny characters".  
Y'know

like python or cobol or C



One presumes that this sort of thing:-

my @l;

foreach my $l (@l) {
  ...
}

is now (even more) deprecated by the perl thought police?



Nah, it's not the "perl thought police" you have to worry about with
that one - it's the radical functional programming fifth columnists
posing as otherwise respectable members of the perl community ...

/J\


Is that a double invocation of Godwin's Law by stealth?

It was, of course, in "1984" that the fascist government controlled  
people though making the language smaller and resisting changes. That  
makes the "in"-crowd proles, not 5th columnists. Unless you're a  
fascist[1] :D


Iain

[1] non-stealth Godwin invocation

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Jonathan Stowe]

2008/10/9 Iain Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 9 Oct 2008, at 2:36 pm, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
>
>> 2008/10/9 Dirk Koopman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>> Jonathan Stowe wrote:

 2008/10/9 Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On 9 Oct 2008, at 01:39, Iain Barnett wrote:

>> if a in b   #this is even better IMO

 I think this is the previous without *any* "funny characters". Y'know
 like python or cobol or C

>>>
>>> One presumes that this sort of thing:-
>>>
>>> my @l;
>>>
>>> foreach my $l (@l) {
>>>  ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> is now (even more) deprecated by the perl thought police?
>>>
>>
>> Nah, it's not the "perl thought police" you have to worry about with
>> that one - it's the radical functional programming fifth columnists
>> posing as otherwise respectable members of the perl community ...
>>
>> /J\
>
> Is that a double invocation of Godwin's Law by stealth?
>
> It was, of course, in "1984" that the fascist government controlled people
> though making the language smaller and resisting changes. That makes the
> "in"-crowd proles, not 5th columnists. Unless you're a fascist[1] :D

I can only conclude that you are replying to a different message.

/J\

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Philippe Bruhat (BooK)]

On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 02:56:53PM +0100, Iain Barnett wrote:
>
> [1] non-stealth Godwin invocation
>

Does that mean this thread is dead and we can move on?

-- 
 Philippe Bruhat (BooK)

 The shortest distance between two points is not always the safest.
(Moral from Groo The Wanderer #69 (Epic))

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Paul Makepeace]

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2008, at 01:39, Iain Barnett wrote:
>>
>> if $a ~~ $b #this could mean several things
>
> A smart match between two scalars. Clear.
>
>> if $a in $b #it is clear what this means
>
> One scalar is in another? WTF?

>>> "ass" in "assume"
True

>> if a in b   #this is even better IMO
>
>
> Dunno what a and b are - so who knows what it does?

>>> fun = ("beer", "buffy", "pie", "perl")
>>> "perl" in fun
True

Because you write your language so that the commonly understood
meaning of the keyword is manifested in its implementation?

> Which is not, of course, to say that you're wrong - but that readability is
> - to some extent - in the eye of the beholder.
>
> --
> Andy Armstrong, Hexten
>
>
>
>

Re: Complaining (was: Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Aaron Trevena]

2008/10/8 Chris Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 03:51:18PM +0100, Dominic Thoreau wrote:
>> If there was nothing else to complain about, they'd complain that
>> things were too nice.
>
> In msg just received from the SO, currently on south coast of Crete:
>
> 
> P.S. Just overhead a neighbour say, "I don't like that beach, there's
> too much sand."
> 

My sister in law goes on holiday to places famous for their amazing
beaches and refuses to set foot on them unless in order to reach a
particular water sport, instead she'll use the pool and patio of
whichever fugly blot on the landscape hotel she's staying in.
Apparently the sand is too much hassle.

OTOH I did find the pebbly beaches on Paxos to be considerably less
hassle with an 18 month old toddler than the sandy ones at home - no
mouthfulls of sand, no nappies full of sand, less hassle all round.

A.


-- 
http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk
LAMP System Integration, Development and Hosting

Re: MVC (Re: DBIx::Class - Related Tables)

[Andy Wardley]

Randy J. Ray wrote:
Izzat the one what has to do with not getting into a land war in Asia or 
a battle of wits with a Sicilian[*]?


That reminds me of John Cleese's talk on the important of making mistakes.

  Of course there are true copper bottomed mistakes, like spelling
  the word “rabbit” with three m’s, or wearing a black bra under a
  white blouse, or, to make a more masculine example, starting a land
  war in Asia.

http://www.ilstu.edu/~eostewa/Art309/Mistakes.htm

A

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Iain Barnett]

On 9 Oct 2008, at 11:12 am, Paul Makepeace wrote:


As an anecdotal single data point.. I've been programming Perl as my
main language since '94 and within 2yrs of exposure to python I'd say
_purely from an aesthetic point of view_ I prefer reading python. In
other words despite having 10+yrs to get used to perl, python's
appearance seems more pleasant to me. I really think it's struck a
good balance of expressiveness and language-naturalness in terms of
appearance.

(FWIW, PHP's seems like a huge mess, visually.)

P


Personally, I think Haskell has a very pleasant, uncluttered syntax.  
I just wish I could do something practical with it! :)


Iain

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Jonathan Stowe]

2008/10/9 Andy Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 9 Oct 2008, at 01:39, Iain Barnett wrote:
>>

>
>> if a in b   #this is even better IMO
>

I think this is the previous without *any* "funny characters". Y'know
like python or cobol or C

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Iain Barnett]

On 9 Oct 2008, at 3:29 pm, Jonathan Stowe wrote:


Nah, it's not the "perl thought police" you have to worry about with
that one - it's the radical functional programming fifth columnists
posing as otherwise respectable members of the perl community ...

/J\


Is that a double invocation of Godwin's Law by stealth?

It was, of course, in "1984" that the fascist government  
controlled people
though making the language smaller and resisting changes. That  
makes the

"in"-crowd proles, not 5th columnists. Unless you're a fascist[1] :D


I can only conclude that you are replying to a different message.



I can only conclude your fibbing, unless you don't understand the  
link between "thought police", naziism, 5th columnists, paranoia, the  
control of language, and the dislike of challenging ideas.



On 9 Oct 2008, at 3:24 pm, Philippe Bruhat (BooK) wrote:


On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 02:56:53PM +0100, Iain Barnett wrote:


[1] non-stealth Godwin invocation



Does that mean this thread is dead and we can move on?




With that attitude it's a wonder why anyone picks languages other  
than perl.


;)

Iain

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Aaron Trevena]

2008/10/9 Iain Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Nah, it's not the "perl thought police" you have to worry about with
>> that one - it's the radical functional programming fifth columnists
>> posing as otherwise respectable members of the perl community ...
>>
>> /J\
>
> Is that a double invocation of Godwin's Law by stealth?

No.

The Fifth Column refers to "nationalist" sabateurs and agent
provocateurs within the republican controlled areas of spain during
the spanish civil war, it was for the most part a bogeyman used to
justify infighting and secret police and sabotage of other parties
within the republican alliance, mostly by the communists who were
trying to take control using soviet supply and support as leverage.

> It was, of course, in "1984" that the fascist government controlled people
> though making the language smaller and resisting changes. That makes the
> "in"-crowd proles, not 5th columnists. Unless you're a fascist[1] :D

No. Proles are the common man, fifth columnists are the Emanual
Goldstein (except of course that Goldstein), the Thought Police are
neither the proletariat nor the fifth column.

IIRC George Orwell based the scenario in 1984 as much on totalitarian
communist regime that eventually took almost exclusive control of the
republican side during the civil war, as well as the fascists that it
would more obviously be associated with, fighting as part of the
international brigades gave him experience of what happens when the
End justifies the Means, and the power of propoganda used by both
sides throughout the war.

A.

-- 
http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk
LAMP System Integration, Development and Hosting

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Jonathan Stowe]

On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 19:18 +0100, Iain Barnett wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2008, at 3:29 pm, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Nah, it's not the "perl thought police" you have to worry about with
> >>> that one - it's the radical functional programming fifth columnists
> >>> posing as otherwise respectable members of the perl community ...
> >>>
> >>> /J\
> >>
> >> Is that a double invocation of Godwin's Law by stealth?
> >>
> >> It was, of course, in "1984" that the fascist government  
> >> controlled people
> >> though making the language smaller and resisting changes. That  
> >> makes the
> >> "in"-crowd proles, not 5th columnists. Unless you're a fascist[1] :D
> >
> > I can only conclude that you are replying to a different message.
> 
> 
> I can only conclude your fibbing, unless you don't understand the  
> link between "thought police", naziism, 5th columnists, paranoia, the  
> control of language, and the dislike of challenging ideas.
> 

So I am either lying or I am stupid? And you were querying the tone of
discourse around here.

I think you might want to consult the archive of the list to discover
the rules of this list.

/J\

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Aaron Trevena]

2008/10/9 Iain Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I can only conclude your fibbing, unless you don't understand the link
> between "thought police", naziism, 5th columnists, paranoia, the control of
> language, and the dislike of challenging ideas.

There are some links between some of those topics, but probably not
the ones you're trying to make.

1984 refers to a totalitarian state, not necessarily a fascist one, it
could be socialist, anarchist, communist, fascist, absolute monarchy
or libertarian - totalitarian rule by all these groups occured in
europe in the 20th century and the spanish civil war provided almost a
lab experiment of how these groups ruled, whether at national,
regional or city state level. There are no direct references to the
Nazi party, and a great deal more to Orwells own experience of
paranoia and propoganda in his time fighting in and corresponding from
the International Brigade.

In fact it's pretty well known that Orwell was no fan of the stalinist
communism he saw in Spain, his Animal Farm book was clearly
anti-soviet and when he was writing 1984 he helped a friend in the
Foreign Office anti-soviet propoganda unit, so 1984 isn't directly
linked to Nazism at all, much more so it's about communism.

A.

-- 
http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk
LAMP System Integration, Development and Hosting

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Aaron Trevena]

2008/10/9 Aaron Trevena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> IIRC George Orwell based the scenario in 1984 as much on totalitarian
> communist regime that eventually took almost exclusive control of the
> republican side during the civil war, as well as the fascists that it
> would more obviously be associated with, fighting as part of the
> international brigades gave him experience of what happens when the
> End justifies the Means, and the power of propoganda used by both
> sides throughout the war.

I remember wrong Orwell never managed to join the International
Brigade he independantly joined the POUM, and was shot in the throat
during the fratricidal infighting in barcelona after he'd applied but
before he could join the fight in madrid, and ended up trying to
escape the whole bloody mess with a much less gung ho and naive
attitude towards the fight against facism.

A.

-- 
http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk
LAMP System Integration, Development and Hosting

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Iain Barnett]

On 9 Oct 2008, at 8:53 pm, Jonathan Stowe wrote:


I can only conclude your fibbing, unless you don't understand the
link between "thought police", naziism, 5th columnists, paranoia, the
control of language, and the dislike of challenging ideas.



So I am either lying or I am stupid? And you were querying the tone of
discourse around here.

I think you might want to consult the archive of the list to discover
the rules of this list.

/J\


You're the one who started using pejorative language ad hominem. If  
you don't like it, then don't give it out. There's no shots for free  
here.


Iain

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Iain Barnett]

On 9 Oct 2008, at 9:00 pm, Aaron Trevena wrote:


2008/10/9 Iain Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

Nah, it's not the "perl thought police" you have to worry about with
that one - it's the radical functional programming fifth columnists
posing as otherwise respectable members of the perl community ...

/J\


Is that a double invocation of Godwin's Law by stealth?


No.

The Fifth Column refers to "nationalist" sabateurs and agent
provocateurs within the republican controlled areas of spain during
the spanish civil war, it was for the most part a bogeyman used to
justify infighting and secret police and sabotage of other parties
within the republican alliance, mostly by the communists who were
trying to take control using soviet supply and support as leverage.


No. That's the first use of the phrase, not necessarily what it  
refers to now.




It was, of course, in "1984" that the fascist government  
controlled people
though making the language smaller and resisting changes. That  
makes the

"in"-crowd proles, not 5th columnists. Unless you're a fascist[1] :D


No. Proles are the common man, fifth columnists are the Emanual
Goldstein (except of course that Goldstein), the Thought Police are
neither the proletariat nor the fifth column.


No. Proles are the ones who are allowed to use their own (simple)  
language (like "in"), that's what I was referring to with that. To  
think that the analogy is a perfect fit in all aspects would be  
misguided (IMO), and I wasn't the one that brought it up in the first  
place (it was bad to begin with). Add to that, if one were a fascist  
then any challenge of authority would make the challenger a 5th  
Columnist in their eyes if the challenger were considered a  
"respectable member" of the group.




IIRC George Orwell based the scenario in 1984 as much on totalitarian
communist regime that eventually took almost exclusive control of the
republican side during the civil war, as well as the fascists that it
would more obviously be associated with, fighting as part of the
international brigades gave him experience of what happens when the
End justifies the Means, and the power of propoganda used by both
sides throughout the war.



Thanks for the lesson, but I already knew that.


A.

--
http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk
LAMP System Integration, Development and Hosting

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Iain Barnett]

On 9 Oct 2008, at 9:15 pm, Aaron Trevena wrote:


2008/10/9 Iain Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I can only conclude your fibbing, unless you don't understand the  
link
between "thought police", naziism, 5th columnists, paranoia, the  
control of

language, and the dislike of challenging ideas.


There are some links between some of those topics, but probably not
the ones you're trying to make.


Bad assumption.



1984 refers to a totalitarian state, not necessarily a fascist one, it
could be socialist, anarchist, communist, fascist, absolute monarchy
or libertarian - totalitarian rule by all these groups occured in
europe in the 20th century and the spanish civil war provided almost a
lab experiment of how these groups ruled, whether at national,
regional or city state level. There are no direct references to the
Nazi party, and a great deal more to Orwells own experience of
paranoia and propoganda in his time fighting in and corresponding from
the International Brigade.


Since I knew that you might want to reassess. Btw, people refer to  
fascism/Godwin's law because of it's totalitarian aspects.




In fact it's pretty well known that Orwell was no fan of the stalinist
communism he saw in Spain, his Animal Farm book was clearly
anti-soviet and when he was writing 1984 he helped a friend in the
Foreign Office anti-soviet propoganda unit, so 1984 isn't directly
linked to Nazism at all, much more so it's about communism.


never said it was directly linked to Naziism, that it can be linked  
was enough. Stop making assumptions about a lack of knowledge would  
be my tip. Or picking holes in an analogy I didn't start.



Iain

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Dave Hodgkinson]

On 9 Oct 2008, at 19:18, Iain Barnett wrote:



I can only conclude your fibbing


You're.

You lose. You get to keep PHP.

--  
Dave HodgkinsonMSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Site: http://www.davehodgkinson.com   UK: +44 7768  
490620

Blog: http://davehodg.blogspot.comNL: +31 654 982906
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davehodg

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Andy Armstrong]

On 10 Oct 2008, at 01:18, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:

On 9 Oct 2008, at 19:18, Iain Barnett wrote:



I can only conclude your fibbing


You're.

You lose. You get to keep PHP.



Nah, he's just systematically stripping all that unfriendly  
punctuation out of English.


--
Andy Armstrong, Hexten

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[Andy Wardley]

Aaron Trevena wrote:

In fact it's pretty well known that Orwell was no fan of the stalinist
communism he saw in Spain, 


Never mind that.  What was his position on the prevalence of non-alphanumeric
operators in Perl?   :-)

A

Re: Perl's lack of 'in' keyword

[IvorW]

Andy Armstrong wrote:
> * Replies will be sent through Spamex to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> * For additional info click -> http://www.spamex.com/i/?v=28377196
>
> DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08)
> X-BeenThere: london.pm@london.pm.org
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
> Precedence: list
> Reply-To: "London.pm Perl M\[ou\]ngers" 
> List-Id: "London.pm Perl M\[ou\]ngers" 
> List-Unsubscribe: ,
> 
> List-Archive: 
> List-Post: 
> List-Help: 
> List-Subscribe: ,
> 
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On 10 Oct 2008, at 01:18, Dave Hodgkinson wrote:
>> On 9 Oct 2008, at 19:18, Iain Barnett wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I can only conclude your fibbing
>>
>> You're.
>>
>> You lose. You get to keep PHP.
>
>
> Nah, he's just systematically stripping all that unfriendly
> punctuation out of English.

No, he's stated he is capable of drawing the threads of your lies to a
conclusion, but nothing more.