Re^5: disappearing segfault


"be consistent"
	PerlMonks

Re^5: disappearing segfault

by BrowserUk (Patriarch)

on Mar 13, 2009 at 06:47 UTC ( [id://750328]=note: print w/replies, xml )

Need Help??

in reply to Re^4: disappearing segfault
in thread disappearing segfault

I'm sorry, but questions of the form: "If X, then why not just Y" are far from "Socratic". They are an invitation to open a dialogue--with the OP.

As for lecturing ...

Because building secret magic into your program is sloppy, and could easily bite him in the rear in time.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

"Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."

Comment on Re^5: disappearing segfault

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^6: disappearing segfault
by pobocks (Chaplain) on Mar 14, 2009 at 05:13 UTC

They are, in fact, functioning as Socratic dialog if they aren't being asked in earnest, but rather, to provoke response/induce counterthought. And, again, I'm not saying that that's a bad thing; just that it's not a given that people reading the thread will understand that you don't actually "mean it."

As for lecturing; eh. I responded as I would have if the question was asked in earnest. I could have been more diplomatic, but I wasn't rude, and I answered the question to the best of my knowledge.

Basically, read my responses as "I totally didn't know that your question was rhetorical, there being no explicit or implicit context that led me to believe it was. Marking such statements would have prevented me from mis-interpreting it. Regardless, no harm done.

for(split(" ","tsuJ rehtonA lreP rekcaH")){print reverse . " "}print "\b.\n";

[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom