Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
There's more than one way to do things

RE: Perl 5 Pocket Reference (add publisher link)

by ybiC (Prior)
on Jul 11, 2000 at 12:46 UTC ( #21938=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Perl 5 Pocket Reference

I like your review Cmonster.

You've got my ++ if you add an Update: reply with your review formatted like what's becoming a defacto standard. node_id=21811 is one example, node=Book Reviews has others. If I could I'd give double ++ for including a link to the publisher :^P

Here's a case where being able to edit a root node might be A Good Thing.

Update: wow, that was quick, CMonster. Looks like the venerable Site Documentation Clan allows some form of Reviews editing. :^)
  • Comment on RE: Perl 5 Pocket Reference (add publisher link)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: RE: Perl 5 Pocket Reference (cmonster: add publisher info
by CMonster (Scribe) on Jul 11, 2000 at 21:11 UTC

    Okay, let's see if this works...

    Don't blame me if the fabric of the universe starts to unravel once I start updating. ;)

    Okay, that worked. How is it now? I didn't seem to have any trouble editing it, but that's just me.

RE (2) Ybic: Perl 5 Pocket Reference (nuance: rant :-))
by nuance (Hermit) on Jul 11, 2000 at 14:26 UTC
    It's hard to think of a case where "being able to edit" a root node would be a bad thing (tm).


      The Site Documentation Clan tells us in node 17557 why Monks must jump through these hoops to have a root node edited or deleted. It's not my call, but looks like the lesser of evils to me.

      Here's a recent thread on the subject, started by Kozz's post "Give Maintainer Permissions to delete their own nodes?".

        If you look closely at that thread, you'll see that I participated in it. I've been complaining about this for ages (hence the "rant" in my title).

        I'm not convinced that the site documenation team have got this one right (in fact I'm convinced we're wrong and might edit that faqlett). I once asked vroom about this, he said that there were several reasons why they did it this way when they were designing the site, but didn't elaborate on what they were. Anyway he told me that that wasn't the reason why they did it like that, although it was probably a "useful side benefit". Unfortuntely all this was done on the chatterbox, so there is no permenant record of the conversation (not one I can access anyway).

        The converstaion took place about the time of the "100 sexiest women" fiasco. I assured the author of that post that he would not be able to amend the "root" of a discussion. He was able to edit his post as some types of "root node" are editible, I was amazed and demanded to know how he had done it as I thought it was impossible, that's when vroom told me that some "root nodes" are editibale and some aren't. I specifically asked if this possible imflamatory material which may appear on the front page after moderation was the reason. He told me it wasn't.

        Sorry that this is such a rambly node, but I couldn't remember where the converstaion took place and was looking for the nodes involved (which I just remember don't exist)



Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://21938]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others musing on the Monastery: (7)
As of 2022-01-26 16:28 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    In 2022, my preferred method to securely store passwords is:

    Results (69 votes). Check out past polls.