El mar., 14 ene. 2020 1:24, ToddAndMargo via perl6-users < perl6-users@perl.org> escribió:
> On 2020-01-13 15:16, Laurent Rosenfeld via perl6-users wrote: > > Your own record over the last years shows that you very often don't > > understand documentation (and I actually sometimes wonder whether you're > > even really interested in trying to understand it). > > Actually, I go there a lot and I tear my hair out. > They are the antithesis of how Perl 5 wrote their > documentation (the only part of Perl 5 I like better > than Perl 6). > Never miss a good chance to bash documentation... > > > Your disdain for the documentation just confirms that. > > The documentation needs work. Several involved in > the documentation process have mentioned this in > several places. It is not like it is a secret. > I have tried to contribute to it before, but I > can't get past JJ. > I, the sole gatekeeper of documentation lore, banish you from ever entering my realm. Vade retro! I mean, really... > > And why do you think I am constantly find errors > in the documentation. Because I ignore them? > > By the way, "C String" REQUIRES a nul at the end: > an error in the NativeCall documentation. > No, it does not. And even if it did, it should better go to the C, not Raku, documentation > > > > But since you > > also explained very clearly times and again in the past that you don't > > want to read books or tutorials either, I also wonder whether you're > > interested in learning the language. I mean, *really* interested, to the > > point of making *real* efforts in that direction. > > You have no idea what I go through. You will if > you ever get to see my paper on NativeCall and > Win API. > > > > The way you consistently mixed up uint and Uint in the last hours, > > despite having been warned about this mistake, also shows a lack of > > proper consideration for the documentation. > > Now that is a mystery to me. The documentation for UInt > does not mention uint. But UInt and uint act exactly > the same and have exactly the same properties. But > somehow they are different. Since you know more than > I about Raku, please teach me the different. > > Maybe I presume too much thinking this is yet another > error/oversight in the documentation. Neither UInt > or uint even show up on > > https://docs.raku.org/images/type-graph-Numeric.svg > > > > > > The way you obstinately use the word "cardinal" these last days also > > shows it, since there is simply no such thing as cardinals in the Raku > > types, subsets, or whatever, and, even though some languages have used > > it in the past (and, yes, I have also used Modula-2 in a quite distant > > past), "cardinal" is certainly NOT a common IT concept (I mean in the > > way integer, unsigned integer, or float are common concepts, often > > defined by CPU manufacturers). Granted, most people here probably have a > > good understanding of the word "cardinal," but it's essentially a math > > concept, and has no precise definition in a programming language, unless > > of course the programming language in question does define it, which > > Raku doesn't. Yes, cardinals may be loosely described as integers equal > > to or larger than zero, but that doesn't make a definition and that > > tells us nothing about their range or maximal value, or about the > > methods that can be invoked on them, and so on. > > "cardinal" is a generic arithmetic and programming term. > It does not denote how many bit or bytes or whose CPU > calls what. And it is only uncommon if you have not > heard it before. And with your programming experience, > you should know the difference between generic > programming terms and language specific terms. > > > So, please, stop using the word "cardinal,", which is just improper, > > useless and essentially meaningless in the context of thee Raku > > language. Please use the types, subsets and other concept properly > > defined in Raku. > > Look at what I write closely. When I use a generic term like cardinal, > I always put the Raku term in parenthesis. If > this is not understandable to others, then it is a technical > writing issue on my part, not an ignorance of the > specifics any programming language. > > I have been doing a lot with NativeCall and WinAPI > functions the last several weeks, so I have been > using a lot of generic terms and have had to learn C++ > terms the hard way and how they map to Raku types. > (This is all in my paper.) NativeCalls documentation > is almost, but not completely, useless. > > By the way DWORD is a form of cardinal and are best > emulated as uint16. You run into trouble with int16. > Did you notice that I said "form of a"? > > I do the same thing with the generic term "Pointer", which > by the way can mean a lot of things. Not all pointers > are C Pointers, such as Perl 5's "references", which is > what the parenthesis are for. So when you use the term > "Pointer" you have to say what kind of pointer your > are talking about. > > This conversation reminds me of one I had with the Perl 5 > folks. I prefer to call hashes, "associative arrays". > I got told how ignorant I was and how much I did not > understand the Perl. A quote from Larry himself > ended that: he piked "hash" because it was easier to > write (fewer letters). > > > > > Sorry, I really don't mean to be blunt, but you should try harder to > > learn from what knowledgeable people tell you. Most of those who > > answered you know better. > > > > Regards, > > Laurent. > > > > Many thanks, > -T >
