Everything needs to be decoded but it comes down to context. Someone attempting to decode my perl example as code might become very confused. It doesn't serve a purpose as a computer program. If you approach perl code as always having a useful function, it's not going to push your buttons. I could even see a serious perl programmer overlooking the serious message of the text. Who knows... perhaps I really am asking someone to push me off a cliff... but that's not what the code means. It has nothing to do with pushing a person, much less pushing a person over a cliff. It's simply adding an element to an array. And then, to top it all off, the array doesn't get used. Makes no sense. Or does it?
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:38 PM, mez breeze <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Pall Thayer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> And, as a reply to Seibel's comments, do we not "decode" literature? >> > > Mezangelle certainly needs to be decoded. Sometimes I even help out with > that [but only by "translating"/unpacking it into a diluted English > version, like here: http://wishforyouand.me/2014/01/23/day-20/ ]. > > > -- > | facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign <http://www.facebook.com/MezBreezeDesign> > | twitter.com/MezBreezeDesign > | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mez_Breeze > > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- ***************************** Pall Thayer artist http://pallthayer.dyndns.org *****************************
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
