Aaaah... it's WORSE!
"When an Autoopen file has been detected and the user has confirmed
that the file indicated in the Autoopen file should be opened then the
file indicated in the Autoopen file MUST be opened in the application
normally preferred by the user for files of its kind UNLESS the
On Dec 14, 2006, at 8:20 PM, jrod...@hate.spamportal.net wrote:
http://standards.freedesktop.org/autostart-spec/autostart-spec-0.5.html
"When a desktop environment mounts a new medium, the medium may contain
an Autostart file that can suggest to start an application or an
Autoopen file that c
On Dec 16, 2006, at 1:07 PM, Juerd wrote:
Michael Leuchtenburg skribis 2006-12-16 13:01 (-0500):
I hate the fucking useless "continue" blocks.
I don't like them either, but it's no problem because I just chose to
simply not use them.
I hate the way Perl leads people to say "I don't like $BA
Michael Leuchtenburg skribis 2006-12-16 13:01 (-0500):
> I hate the fucking useless "continue" blocks.
I don't like them either, but it's no problem because I just chose to
simply not use them.
I see very little code that uses them, and never use them myself.
In fact, I'd have to look it up in
What is this, loves-perl? Release your anger, your hate!
I've spent innumerable hours coding in Perl. If I was going to run off a
web app or a little daemon, I'd probably use Perl to do it. But you know
what?
I hate Perl.
I hate the fucking useless "continue" blocks. If I want to execute
somethi
On Dec 16, 2006, at 10:45 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
(Although
I suppose it's much like what you said about POSIX sh: the
alternatives [to Perl 4] of that era were even more hateful.)
No, sir, that would not be an operative statement, sir.
POSIX sh was much later than the era I was talking about
* Peter da Silva [2006-12-16 14:35]:
> >When we were first taught programming (in Pascal), some
> >students complained the language was using English. The
> >professor responded that "computer languages don't use
> >English. They use arbitrary keywords that just happen to
> >resemble English words
* Abigail [2006-12-16 09:55]:
> It's even more hateful that $" is a global variable and you
> can't put it in a namespace, or localize it. (And for the Perl
> weenies out there: local has its own list of hate).
That had me boggling, so I checked. I'm not arguing the rest of
your points, but you *
* Double click on a .csv file
* Open the .csv file from File->Open
* Import data from file (most reliable)
Even in *quoted* data like ,"2","20061112","a", M$ decides that the
middle
value is 11 Dec 2006 using the first two methods. Localisation--
(US date system)--
Oh. My. God. Pardon me, I h
It's even more hateful that $" is a global variable and you can't put
it in a namespace, or localize it. (And for the Perl weenies out there:
local has its own list of hate).
my god;
Thank you for opening up a whole new steaming pool of hate that was
safely hidden away in a festering never-to-
When we were first taught programming (in Pascal), some students
complained the language was using English. The professor responded that
"computer languages don't use English. They use arbitrary keywords that
just happen to resemble English words".
Yes, but Perl's *different*, right? It's not on
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:09:48 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> David Landgren wrote:
> > Martin Ebourne did write:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> While I can understand the problem for non-native english speakers it's
> >> an endemic problem to any software at that level (as opposed to the UI
> >> le
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 04:59:57PM +, Martin Ebourne wrote:
> "H.Merijn Brand" wrote:
> >As long as it takes? How would you think Dutch/Polish/French/Russian/...
> >would like to beat you back with all the `English' verbs in their script
> >that uses variable with native-language names?
>
> H
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 10:33:09AM -0600, Peter da Silva wrote:
> > $"="whatever array seperator i choose";
>
> Any language (other than something like Forth, where there is only one
> syntactically significant character) in which that can possibly be a
> syntactically valid statement is corrupt b
David Landgren wrote:
> Martin Ebourne did write:
>
> [...]
>
>> While I can understand the problem for non-native english speakers it's
>> an endemic problem to any software at that level (as opposed to the UI
>> level). I am not aware of any language that's translated in this way
>> (althoug
15 matches
Mail list logo
