Re: listserv vs. Google Group
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:11:22AM -0600, Doran, Michael D wrote: > The fact that perl4lib postings also go to Google Groups should at least > be mentioned in the "WELCOME to perl4lib@perl.org" automated > subscription response (preferably at the top). Nothing was in there as > of my July 30, 2003 WELCOME message. Neato, it's news to me that perl4lib is archived in google groups. You should probably know it is in the mail-archive [1] as well, which is mentioned on the perl4lib homepage. You would do best to direct your concerns to Ask Bjørn Hansen (ask at develooper dot com) about the boilerplate since that is under his control. My perspective on this is that listservs, usenet and blogs are converging, and I don't tend to alter my delivery when using them. If you are concerned about personal information getting out there I think you are best served by removing the information from your signature. Of course this doesn't help you with the information that's already out there...unless you take drastic action like moving and changing your name :-) At least Google does you the favor of obscuring your email address, which is nice from a spam standpoint, and is more than archives like web4lib/xml4lib do for you. //Ed [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/perl4lib%40perl.org/ -- Ed Summers aim: inkdroid skype: inkdroid web: http://www.inkdroid.org Give and ye shall receive. [Bram Cohen]
Re: mailing lists vs. Google Groups (Usenet)
On Wed, Mar 23, 2005 at 11:11:22AM -0600, Doran, Michael D ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Although serving a similar purpose, I make a distinction between > listservs and news groups. The main distinction being that I assume the > audience for the listserv is the people who explicitly subscribe to the > listserv, whereas the audience for Google Groups are basically the whole > world. This distinction affects my posting behavior. I would suggest that the distinction you draw between the two is imaginary. I expect that anything that I send to anything that is not a single person may potentially get mirrored somewhere that Google (or any search engine) will find. > The fact that perl4lib postings also go to Google Groups should at least > be mentioned in the "WELCOME to perl4lib@perl.org" automated It sure couldn't hurt. Also, LISTSERV is a trademark. The generic term is "mailing list." http://www.lsoft.com/corporate/legal.asp -- Andy Lester => [EMAIL PROTECTED] => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
listserv vs. Google Group
I'm not sure that everybody who subscribes to this listserv is aware that perl4lib listserv postings end up in the perl.perl4lib Google Group. I know that I was a bit surprised to find that out. Although serving a similar purpose, I make a distinction between listservs and news groups. The main distinction being that I assume the audience for the listserv is the people who explicitly subscribe to the listserv, whereas the audience for Google Groups are basically the whole world. This distinction affects my posting behavior. For instance... I use a full "signature" (containing personal information) for listserv postings, but am more restrictive in my postings to news groups [1]. I tend to use a familiar and informal tone with my listserv postings since the responses are often going to somebody I actually know (if only by reputation). I wouldn't necessarily use that tone for responses to a news group posting. In addition, I'm more *likely* to post a response to a listserv request for assistance, knowing (I thought) that any resulting mistakes and ignorance on my part get a limited distribution. The fact that perl4lib postings also go to Google Groups should at least be mentioned in the "WELCOME to perl4lib@perl.org" automated subscription response (preferably at the top). Nothing was in there as of my July 30, 2003 WELCOME message. -- Michael # Michael Doran, Systems Librarian # University of Texas at Arlington # 817-272-5326 office # 817-688-1926 cell # [EMAIL PROTECTED] # http://rocky.uta.edu/doran/
Re: Syntax for Multiple conditions
On Mar 21, 2005, at 1:47 PM, Bryan Baldus wrote:
See perldoc perlop for Equality Operators. I believe:
if ($field_100 && (($fic == '1') and ($juvie == 'j'))) {
should be
if ($field_100 && (($fic eq '1') and ($juvie eq 'j'))) {
Also, the parens aren't necessary:
if ($field_100 and $fix eq '1' and $juvie eq 'j')
Or equivalently:
if ($field_100 && $fix eq '1' && $juvie eq 'j')
Or equivalently (not that I would recommend this syntax):
if ($field_100 && $fix eq '1' and $juvie eq 'j')
This is because 'a eq b' expressions are evaluated before 'c && d'
expressions, which are evaluated before 'e and f' expressions.
Paul.
--
Paul Hoffman :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: http://www.nkuitse.com/
