Michael D. Smith graced perl with these words of wisdom:
> We're definitely in for it now. Whip out the spam filters and prepare
> to weather the storm.
Oh, I've already got my spam-filter in action for that [EMAIL PROTECTED] Swen
worm. :-)
See as well my post from the 18th titled "Regex humor
Michael D. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You will recall the current mega-thread started not with a
> question but a mention of "it" in jest. I hesitate to say
> "it" for obvious reason but since everyone knows what "it"
> means, that may not matter. We may all be doomed to lifetime
> filled w
27;re definitely in for it now. Whip out the spam filters and prepare to
weather the storm.
ms
At 06:10 AM 9/23/03, you wrote:
It's that time of year again: please allow me
to present the *Unofficial* Flameware/Mega-Thread
FAQ, posting II:
Feel like a bit of a tussle?
Feel like avoiding
It's that time of year again: please allow me
to present the *Unofficial* Flameware/Mega-Thread
FAQ, posting II:
Feel like a bit of a tussle?
Feel like avoiding one?
Here's a handy cut-out-and-keep list of favourite
fighting-talk subjects for this list:
* HTML e-mail and you
Title: RE: FAQ
HEY! In my own defense:
-- I only did that once
-- I was referring to Time::Local (not localtime :)
-- I am a bonehead
-- it really is counter-intuitive to have the month 0-based
and the day and year 1-based. Especially since the months
are commonly referred
r
> time responding.
Except that people will respond, anyway, sometimes 24-48 hours after the
fact, because they haven't read the FAO-server's reply.
It happens here, with our manual FAQ-servers.
Not to criticize the FAQ-answerers unduly, but IMHO it won't cut down on
th
>My favorite is when people ( who presumedly
> haven't been using Perl for more than a few weeks ) declare they might
> have found a bug in some common function that people have been using
> since 1987(so says -v). I am referring to the popular "$mon from
> localtime is off by one month, is this a
I have to say, that I like the idea of an auto-responder for the following
reasons.
1) People will always post a question to the list with out researching.
2) There is nothing anybody can do about #1.
3) A FAQ with every answer in the world does no good if people do not check
it before
> Yup - a decent faq and a reminder work rather well for most FAQ's assuming
> the users read some emails before posting and didn't subscribe just to ask a
> question. An auto-responder would be unpopular and put new users off, as
I don't think there is a need for
Tillman, James wrote:
> ;-) But even then only historically so. I share Lee's inability to
> understand how Buffy the Vampire Slayer has even the
> slightest thing to do
> with Perl.
Please consult with the london.pm PerlMongers group. Or better yet, with
sunnydale.pm.
__
> >Also I can reccomend a well trained infobot on irc - the
> perl mongers have
> >several very well informed infobots that do things like
> whois and weather
> >lookups as well as factoids on all thing perl related (monty
> python, buffy
> >the vampire slayer, photos of drunken perl mongers an
At 17:00 22/05/2002, Aaron Trevena wrote:
> > >Actually its better to include the urls to the archive and the faq in the
> > >email footer.
> >
> > That's a very bold statement - can you support it?
>
>Yup - a decent faq and a reminder work rather well
> At 15:23 22/05/2002, Aaron Trevena wrote:
> > > Why don't we make a FAQ Auto-responder?
> > > It could scan subjects and first ten lines for
> > > a FAQ, and if it finds one, send the FAQ answer.
> > >
> > > So it wouldn't c
At 15:23 22/05/2002, Aaron Trevena wrote:
> > Why don't we make a FAQ Auto-responder?
> > It could scan subjects and first ten lines for
> > a FAQ, and if it finds one, send the FAQ answer.
> >
> > So it wouldn't cope with the silliest questions,
> >
> Why don't we make a FAQ Auto-responder?
> It could scan subjects and first ten lines for
> a FAQ, and if it finds one, send the FAQ answer.
>
> So it wouldn't cope with the silliest questions,
> but should get most
Actually its better to include the urls to th
Why don't we make a FAQ Auto-responder?
It could scan subjects and first ten lines for
a FAQ, and if it finds one, send the FAQ answer.
So it wouldn't cope with the silliest questions,
but should get most
Lee Goddard
perl -e "while(1){print rand>
c.
PerlScript also allows you to run Perl code alongside VBScript code from
the command line.
My oroginal URL was in reference to PerlScript not a general Perl
language FAQ.
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://listserv.ActiveState.co
o I can see the proper directory and file
> structure to set up a script correctly.
You can start by answering the questions I posed in this and my previous
post. Read perlwin32faq6 and 7 from AS on web server config and programming.
Some links for you:
WWW Security FAQ
http://www.w3.org/
"$Bill Luebkert" wrote:
>
> Rodeo Red wrote:
> >
> > Yes I have looked through that and it seems to completely skip over
> > setting up the files for a simple form that uses a perl script. I have
> > looked at numerous books and they tell you how to do perl once it is set
> > up- but theres ver
> I'm trying to read the Active state FAQ
http://www.activestate.com/Support/ActivePerl/index.html
___
Perl-Win32-Users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/listinfo/perl-win32-users
Rodeo Red wrote:
>
> I'm trying to read the Active state FAQ
>
> file:///C%7C/Perl/html/index.html says
> Contents of this FAQ
>
> ActivePerl-faq: Overview of the ActivePerl FAQ (this document)
> ActivePerl-faq2: Perl Package Manager (PPM)
>
> S
I'm trying to read the Active state FAQ
file:///C%7C/Perl/html/index.html says
Contents of this FAQ
ActivePerl-faq: Overview of the ActivePerl FAQ (this document)
ActivePerl-faq2: Perl Package Manager (PPM)
So where is the ActivePerl FAQ ? The first part is an intro and the
seco
22 matches
Mail list logo
