Fix Perl quick or else.

Or You Can Make a Living with Perl (Rocky & Bullwinkle style alternate title)

Update: Don't take life too seriously. Or this post.

Perl6 is not too complicated!

What about the still missing dwimy operators the ones for people that don't know if they got numbers or strings:

 
g= 
e= 
l= 
n= 
>t 
<t
[download]

And if they don't dwym they should be overrideable. I mean maybe "one" e= 1 should be true sometimes. The locale issues can be shoved back on the OS people, they love little challanges like these. Then people won't worry about eq vs. == they'll just have l< instead of <t problems.

Also what with this wimpy BEGIN CHECK etc. stuff! And where is that going anyway? There should not be just a few named and one nameless phase of execution. I propose

 
BEGIN 1
BEGIN 70
BEGIN 
CHECK 
CHECK 87
[download]

urgently before Perl 78 has:

PRESTART
REDEFINE_THE_UNIVERSE
START
INIT
COMMENCE
BEGIN
CHECK
RECHECK
VERIFY
MAKE_SURE
DOUBLE_CHECK
JUDGEMENT_DAY
DAHA
TTRH
[download]

and all the FAQs that go with those. Like:

SECTION CCLXXVII -- Execution Sequence: The Bory Details.

What is DAHA?

First DAHA is not an acronym, this was Larry XC's first utterance. But use the mnemonic "Decide After Heaven's Attained" to remember where this phase of Perl execution comes after JUDGEMENT_DAY.

What is TTRH?

TTRH is the only acronym in Perl. It is a phase of execution, it stands for "Time to redesign heaven". The persistent rumors that TTRH comes the crotch-seam-ripping noise that overrode some word in Larry IIC's Prefuturist Valentine's Day Monologue Given On May Day should be discounted.

TTRH! Has the real Wall blood been lost some time in the last eighty generations?

That is not a polite question. Like we said TTRH is an acronym.

Then what about y?

Y is not a one word acronym. According to Oxford-Warner-O'Reilly-Websters Perldoc Unabridged what you may think of as one word acronyms are really abbreviations.

Do I really need to know this FAQ stuff?

Yes, it is impossible to properly program in a language without understanding the mindset of the programmers of the language.

Does that mean it is impossible to properly program?

Bingo!

Why didn't you just say so?

It's a living.

Comment on Fix Perl quick or else. Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Fix Perl quick or else.
by ibanix (Hermit) on Mar 19, 2003 at 01:25 UTC

Update

$ echo '$0 & $0 &' > foo; chmod a+x foo; foo;

[reply]
[d/l]

Re: Re: Fix Perl quick or else.

by djantzen (Priest) on Mar 19, 2003 at 04:19 UTC

rir has been a positive contributor to the Monastery and as such deserves the benefit of the doubt. I read the post as a bit of humor, and frankly I got a chuckle from it.

Lexx

[reply]

Re: Re: Re: Fix Perl quick or else.

by PodMaster (Abbot) on Mar 19, 2003 at 05:08 UTC

"has been a positive contributor to the Monastery "...

I too cannot tell if it is an attempt at humor, or something else (serious).

I too would like to know: is it humor or what (it's confusing and unclear; if it's humor, i'd like to know so I can disregard it completely)?

MJD says you can't just make shit up and expect the computer to know what you mean, retardo!
I run a Win32 PPM repository for perl 5.6x+5.8x. I take requests.
** The Third rule of perl club is a statement of fact: pod is sexy.

[reply]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Fix Perl quick or else.

by hardburn (Abbot) on Mar 19, 2003 at 14:40 UTC

Re: Re: Fix Perl quick or else.

by rir (Vicar) on Mar 19, 2003 at 15:05 UTC

Fear not you differently humoured folk, I post such fancies seldom.

I thought the e= operator was obviously the merging of the == and the eq operators. Thanks, I've updated the node per your critcism.

I don't have an issue with your downvote. Although I tend towards contrariety, occasionally I do talk to people with whom I agree. You vote your votes as you think best. Thanks for the feedback.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.


Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
	PerlMonks