>
>> Then there is reasability.
>>
>> void ThisIsMyDumbassFunctionName
>>
so how many times have you typed something like
ThisIsMyDumbAssFunctionName instead of
ThisIsMyDumbassFunctionName
>> if MUCH more difficult to read than
>>
>> void this_is_my_clear_and_easy_function_name
>
>I can
Then there is reasability.
void ThisIsMyDumbassFunctionName
so how many times have you typed something like
ThisIsMyDumbAssFunctionName instead of
ThisIsMyDumbassFunctionName
if MUCH more difficult to read than
void this_is_my_clear_and_easy_function_name
I can certainly read
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> > void ThisIsMyDumbassFunctionName
> >
> > if MUCH more difficult to read than
> >
> > void this_is_my_clear_and_easy_function_name
>
> I can certainly read the first easier than the second.
So I assume you don't approve of the new German
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Harrold) wrote on 23.01.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I prefer descriptive variable and function names - like comments, they
> > help to make code so much easier to read.
> >
> > One thing I wonder though... why do people prefer 'some_function_name()'
> > over
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Underwood) wrote on 24.01.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Unfortunately the C standards people don't seem to realise there are
> languages other than English. C99 had perfect timing to introduce UTF8
> Unicode as acceptable in C source. Alas they missed the boat. I have
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Kodis) wrote on 23.01.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:41:49AM -0500, Jonathan Earle wrote:
>
> > One thing I wonder though... why do people prefer 'some_function_name()'
> > over 'SomeFunctionName()'?
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Harrold) wrote on 23.01.01 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I prefer descriptive variable and function names - like comments, they
help to make code so much easier to read.
One thing I wonder though... why do people prefer 'some_function_name()'
over
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Underwood) wrote on 24.01.01 in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Unfortunately the C standards people don't seem to realise there are
languages other than English. C99 had perfect timing to introduce UTF8
Unicode as acceptable in C source. Alas they missed the boat. I have
been
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
void ThisIsMyDumbassFunctionName
if MUCH more difficult to read than
void this_is_my_clear_and_easy_function_name
I can certainly read the first easier than the second.
So I assume you don't approve of the new German spelling standard,
Apologies first...
Would someone send me a way to filter mail?
I REALLY DO NOT GIVE A RATS ARSE ABOUT THIS OT!!
Like it or Leave it but whinning about it SUX!
Regard,
Cheif Whinner!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
> Too bad we can't just do a "Prince" and invent unpronouncable symbols to
> use as function names... or perhaps just use something from the chinese
> fonts ;o)...
Sorry. You'll need to use Java if you want to use Unicode source.
Brent
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Unfortunately the C standards people don't seem to realise there are
languages other than English. C99 had perfect timing to introduce UTF8
Unicode as acceptable in C source. Alas they missed the boat. I have
been embedding Chinese in C source for years (mostly Big-5 - UTF8 is
more likely to be
At 10:47 AM 1/23/01 -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>Code is written by the few.
>Code is read by the many, and having _ in there makes it MUCH easier to
>read. Visual comparison of "SomeFunctionName" and "some_function_name"
>is faster even for a coder where there may be a typo (try dropping a
That's just nasty! Funny, but nasty. :)
Jon
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Satchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> It took a while to prepare the source for this jerk. Here is
> what I did to
> the source I gave the guy:
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
I am not sure about Linux IDEs, but when I programmed Objective-C using the
OpenStep IDE, you could not only do auto-completion on those, but on any
word that had been previously used. That was cool, and didn't cause wacky
problems like you might think it would (auto-completing words like
> "CF" == Christopher Friesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CF> This is why the autocompletion of functions and struct members in
CF> VC++ is awfully nice...hit the first few unique letters and it
CF> will complete the rest of the function for you, then hit tab and
CF> keep going. Is
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> [lots of good advice deleted]
> > One goal of language designers is to REMOVE the need for comments. With a
> > good fourth-generation or fifth-generation language, the need for comments
> > diminishes to a detailed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Christopher Friesen") writes:
> Georg Nikodym wrote:
>
> > I think that the distinction is moot and this argument a waste of
> > time. If you are anything more than a code tourist, you should have
> > no trouble dealing with mnemonic names. So the above can become:
> >
>
Georg Nikodym wrote:
> I think that the distinction is moot and this argument a waste of
> time. If you are anything more than a code tourist, you should have
> no trouble dealing with mnemonic names. So the above can become:
>
> /*
> * timcaefn == this is my clear and easy function name
>
At 08:28 PM 1/23/01 +0800, Steve Underwood wrote:
>During a period of making a liveing out of
>sorting out severly screwed up projects I made a little comment
>stripper. I found comments so unreliable, and so seldom useful, I was
>better off reading the code without the confusion they might
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:41:49AM -0500, Jonathan Earle wrote:
> One thing I wonder though... why do people prefer 'some_function_name()'
> over 'SomeFunctionName()'?
i_would_assume_that_it_is_because_the_underscore_serves_the_same_word-
seperation_role_that_a_space_does_in_normal_prose.
"Jonathan Earle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I prefer descriptive variable and function names - like comments, they help
> to make code so much easier to read.
>
> One thing I wonder though... why do people prefer 'some_function_name()'
> over 'SomeFunctionName()'? I personally don't like the
TECTED]]
>>
>> Some people still seem to be living in the age of K C, with 6 or 7
>> character variable names that demand some explanation. Maybe some day
>> they will awake to the expressive power of long (and well chosen) names.
>>
>> --_=_NextPart_001_01C0
> "MH" == Mike Harrold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MH> For exactly the reverse of that reason. Typing capital letters is
MH> a heck of a lot more difficult that addint an underscore.
MH> Then there is reasability.
MH> void ThisIsMyDumbassFunctionName
MH> if MUCH more difficult to
> a = b + c; /* add a to b, and store it as c */
I think *this* comment is very fun, since it make me asking myself if I
really know the C language :)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ
K C, with 6 or 7
> character variable names that demand some explanation. Maybe some day
> they will awake to the expressive power of long (and well chosen) names.
>
> --_=_NextPart_001_01C08552.FFC336D0
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="ISO-8859-1"
> C
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:41:49AM -0500, Jonathan Earle wrote:
> I prefer descriptive variable and function names - like comments, they help
> to make code so much easier to read.
>
> One thing I wonder though... why do people prefer 'some_function_name()'
> over 'SomeFunctionName()'? I
Title: RE: [OT?] Coding Style
I prefer descriptive variable and function names - like comments, they help to make code so much easier to read.
One thing I wonder though... why do people prefer 'some_function_name()' over 'SomeFunctionName()'? I personally don't like the underscore
Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> Please don't listen to this. The only place you really want comments is
>
> a) at the top of files, describing the point of the file;
> b) at the top of functions, if the purpose of the function is not obvious;
> c) in line, when the code is not obvious.
One
Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 11:04:50AM -0500, Jonathan Earle wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: profmakx.fmp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >
> > > So, every good programmer
> > > should know where to put comments. And it is unnecessary to
> > > put comments
Stephen Satchell wrote:
[lots of good advice deleted]
> One goal of language designers is to REMOVE the need for comments. With a
> good fourth-generation or fifth-generation language, the need for comments
> diminishes to a detailed description of the data sets and any highly
> unusual
Stephen Satchell wrote:
[lots of good advice deleted]
One goal of language designers is to REMOVE the need for comments. With a
good fourth-generation or fifth-generation language, the need for comments
diminishes to a detailed description of the data sets and any highly
unusual operations
Larry McVoy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 11:04:50AM -0500, Jonathan Earle wrote:
-Original Message-
From: profmakx.fmp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
So, every good programmer
should know where to put comments. And it is unnecessary to
put comments to
explain what
Larry McVoy wrote:
Please don't listen to this. The only place you really want comments is
a) at the top of files, describing the point of the file;
b) at the top of functions, if the purpose of the function is not obvious;
c) in line, when the code is not obvious.
One other
Title: RE: [OT?] Coding Style
I prefer descriptive variable and function names - like comments, they help to make code so much easier to read.
One thing I wonder though... why do people prefer 'some_function_name()' over 'SomeFunctionName()'? I personally don't like the underscore character
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:41:49AM -0500, Jonathan Earle wrote:
I prefer descriptive variable and function names - like comments, they help
to make code so much easier to read.
One thing I wonder though... why do people prefer 'some_function_name()'
over 'SomeFunctionName()'? I personally
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--_=_NextPart_001_01C08552.FFC336D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
I prefer descriptive variable and function names - like
a = b + c; /* add a to b, and store it as c */
I think *this* comment is very fun, since it make me asking myself if I
really know the C language :)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ
"MH" == Mike Harrold [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
MH For exactly the reverse of that reason. Typing capital letters is
MH a heck of a lot more difficult that addint an underscore.
MH Then there is reasability.
MH void ThisIsMyDumbassFunctionName
MH if MUCH more difficult to read than
MH
Too bad we can't just do a "Prince" and invent unpronouncable symbols to
use as function names... or perhaps just use something from the chinese
fonts ;o)...
Mike Harrold wrote:
This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this
"Jonathan Earle" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I prefer descriptive variable and function names - like comments, they help
to make code so much easier to read.
One thing I wonder though... why do people prefer 'some_function_name()'
over 'SomeFunctionName()'? I personally don't like the underscore
On Tue, Jan 23, 2001 at 10:41:49AM -0500, Jonathan Earle wrote:
One thing I wonder though... why do people prefer 'some_function_name()'
over 'SomeFunctionName()'?
i_would_assume_that_it_is_because_the_underscore_serves_the_same_word-
seperation_role_that_a_space_does_in_normal_prose.
At 08:28 PM 1/23/01 +0800, Steve Underwood wrote:
During a period of making a liveing out of
sorting out severly screwed up projects I made a little comment
stripper. I found comments so unreliable, and so seldom useful, I was
better off reading the code without the confusion they might cause. I
Georg Nikodym wrote:
I think that the distinction is moot and this argument a waste of
time. If you are anything more than a code tourist, you should have
no trouble dealing with mnemonic names. So the above can become:
/*
* timcaefn == this is my clear and easy function name
*/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Christopher Friesen") writes:
Georg Nikodym wrote:
I think that the distinction is moot and this argument a waste of
time. If you are anything more than a code tourist, you should have
no trouble dealing with mnemonic names. So the above can become:
/*
*
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Helge Hafting wrote:
Stephen Satchell wrote:
[lots of good advice deleted]
One goal of language designers is to REMOVE the need for comments. With a
good fourth-generation or fifth-generation language, the need for comments
diminishes to a detailed description of
"CF" == Christopher Friesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CF This is why the autocompletion of functions and struct members in
CF VC++ is awfully nice...hit the first few unique letters and it
CF will complete the rest of the function for you, then hit tab and
CF keep going. Is there anything
I am not sure about Linux IDEs, but when I programmed Objective-C using the
OpenStep IDE, you could not only do auto-completion on those, but on any
word that had been previously used. That was cool, and didn't cause wacky
problems like you might think it would (auto-completing words like
That's just nasty! Funny, but nasty. :)
Jon
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Satchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
It took a while to prepare the source for this jerk. Here is
what I did to
the source I gave the guy:
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Unfortunately the C standards people don't seem to realise there are
languages other than English. C99 had perfect timing to introduce UTF8
Unicode as acceptable in C source. Alas they missed the boat. I have
been embedding Chinese in C source for years (mostly Big-5 - UTF8 is
more likely to be
Too bad we can't just do a "Prince" and invent unpronouncable symbols to
use as function names... or perhaps just use something from the chinese
fonts ;o)...
Sorry. You'll need to use Java if you want to use Unicode source.
Brent
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
At 11:56 PM 1/22/01 +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
>At 16:42 22/01/2001, Mark I Manning IV wrote:
>>Stephen Satchell wrote:
>> > I got in the habit of using
>> > structures to minimize the number of symbols I exposed. It also
>> > disambiguates
Admin Mailing Lists wrote:
>hand-holding of that magnitude. We don't write code for idiots.
But if you have to, you can at least enjoy it:
- diversity makes life interesting: use switch() with local variables or
without curly braces
- de-referencing is like a hotel: the more stars, the
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 11:56:40PM +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> At 16:42 22/01/2001, Mark I Manning IV wrote:
> >Stephen Satchell wrote:
> > > I got in the habit of using
> > > structures to minimize the number of symbols I exposed. It also
> >
At 16:42 22/01/2001, Mark I Manning IV wrote:
>Stephen Satchell wrote:
> > I got in the habit of using
> > structures to minimize the number of symbols I exposed. It also
> > disambiguates local variables and parameters from file- and program-global
>
>
> Please don't listen to this. The only place you really want comments is
>
> a) at the top of files, describing the point of the file;
> b) at the top of functions, if the purpose of the function is not obvious;
> c) in line, when the code is not obvious.
>
> If you are writing
Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> One goal of language designers is to REMOVE the need for comments. With a
this is a crock of (deleted). You are chaising rainbows dood, you will
NEVER remove teh need for comments but its obvious you remove teh
comments.
> good fourth-generation or
At 11:04 AM 1/22/01 -0500, you wrote:
>WRONG!!!
>
>Not documenting your code is not a sign of good coding, but rather shows
>arrogance, laziness and contempt for "those who would dare tamper with your
>code after you've written it". Document and comment your code thoroughly.
>Do it as you go
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 11:04:50AM -0500, Jonathan Earle wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: profmakx.fmp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >
> > > So, every good programmer
> > > should know where to put comments. And it is unnecessary to
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry McVoy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 11:04:50AM -0500, Jonathan Earle wrote:
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: profmakx.fmp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >
> > > So, every good programmer
> > > should know where to
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 11:04:50AM -0500, Jonathan Earle wrote:
> WRONG!!!
>
> Not documenting your code is not a sign of good coding, but rather shows
> arrogance, laziness and contempt for "those who would dare tamper with your
> code after you've written it". Document and comment your code
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 11:04:50AM -0500, Jonathan Earle wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: profmakx.fmp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > So, every good programmer
> > should know where to put comments. And it is unnecessary to
> > put comments to
> > explain what code does. One
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: profmakx.fmp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > So, every good programmer
> > should know where to put comments. And it is unnecessary to
> > put comments to
> > explain what code does. One should see this as stated in the
> > CodingStyle doc.
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: profmakx.fmp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> So, every good programmer
> should know where to put comments. And it is unnecessary to
> put comments to
> explain what code does. One should see this as stated in the
> CodingStyle doc.
> Ok, there are points
-Original Message-
From: profmakx.fmp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
So, every good programmer
should know where to put comments. And it is unnecessary to
put comments to
explain what code does. One should see this as stated in the
CodingStyle doc.
Ok, there are points where a
-Original Message-
From: profmakx.fmp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
So, every good programmer
should know where to put comments. And it is unnecessary to
put comments to
explain what code does. One should see this as stated in the
CodingStyle doc.
Ok, there are points
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 11:04:50AM -0500, Jonathan Earle wrote:
-Original Message-
From: profmakx.fmp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
So, every good programmer
should know where to put comments. And it is unnecessary to
put comments to
explain what code does. One should see
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 11:04:50AM -0500, Jonathan Earle wrote:
WRONG!!!
Not documenting your code is not a sign of good coding, but rather shows
arrogance, laziness and contempt for "those who would dare tamper with your
code after you've written it". Document and comment your code
-Original Message-
From: Larry McVoy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 11:04:50AM -0500, Jonathan Earle wrote:
-Original Message-
From: profmakx.fmp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
So, every good programmer
should know where to put comments. And
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Larry McVoy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 11:04:50AM -0500, Jonathan Earle wrote:
-Original Message-
From: profmakx.fmp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
So, every good programmer
should know where to put comments. And it is unnecessary to
put comments
At 11:04 AM 1/22/01 -0500, you wrote:
WRONG!!!
Not documenting your code is not a sign of good coding, but rather shows
arrogance, laziness and contempt for "those who would dare tamper with your
code after you've written it". Document and comment your code thoroughly.
Do it as you go along. I
Stephen Satchell wrote:
One goal of language designers is to REMOVE the need for comments. With a
this is a crock of (deleted). You are chaising rainbows dood, you will
NEVER remove teh need for comments but its obvious you remove teh
comments.
good fourth-generation or fifth-generation
Please don't listen to this. The only place you really want comments is
a) at the top of files, describing the point of the file;
b) at the top of functions, if the purpose of the function is not obvious;
c) in line, when the code is not obvious.
If you are writing code
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 11:56:40PM +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
At 16:42 22/01/2001, Mark I Manning IV wrote:
Stephen Satchell wrote:
I got in the habit of using
structures to minimize the number of symbols I exposed. It also
Admin Mailing Lists wrote:
hand-holding of that magnitude. We don't write code for idiots.
But if you have to, you can at least enjoy it:
- diversity makes life interesting: use switch() with local variables or
without curly braces
- de-referencing is like a hotel: the more stars, the
At 11:56 PM 1/22/01 +, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
At 16:42 22/01/2001, Mark I Manning IV wrote:
Stephen Satchell wrote:
I got in the habit of using
structures to minimize the number of symbols I exposed. It also
disambiguates local variables
well, i watched monty python and the holy grail once (had to find out what
everyone was all excited about) couldn't get into it, watched maybe 1/2 of
it.
-Tony
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
Anthony J. Biacco Network
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Today, Admin Mailing Lists ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > And the lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou write thy holy code. Indenting
> > shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the spaces thou
> > shalt count, and the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Today, Admin Mailing Lists ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
And the lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou write thy holy code. Indenting
shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the spaces thou
shalt count, and the number
well, i watched monty python and the holy grail once (had to find out what
everyone was all excited about) couldn't get into it, watched maybe 1/2 of
it.
-Tony
.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-._.-.
Anthony J. Biacco Network
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Admin Mailing Lists wrote:
> > And the lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou write thy holy code. Indenting
> > shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the spaces thou
> > shalt count, and the number of the counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou
> >
We would never parody Monty Python! This is an excerpt from Judas, one of
the gospels that was in dispute.
I'm sorry, I must go, as there's a man in a military uniform here, shouting
at me to stop being silly...
-josh
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:58:07 Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2001,
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Admin Mailing Lists wrote:
>> And the lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou write thy holy code. Indenting
>> shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the spaces thou
>> shalt count, and the number of the counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou
>> not
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Ragnar Hojland Espinosa wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 05:19:17PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I just wanted to say that Linus´ CodingStyle is the ONLY SANE style of
> > writing code in bigger projects. At university we are forced to use exactly the
>
> And the
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 05:19:17PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I just wanted to say that Linus´ CodingStyle is the ONLY SANE style of
> writing code in bigger projects. At university we are forced to use exactly the
And the lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou write thy holy code.
Hi
I just wanted to say that Linus´ CodingStyle is the ONLY SANE style of
writing code in bigger projects. At university we are forced to use exactly the
braindamaged settings and styles that linux condemns. So, every good programmer
should know where to put comments. And it is unnecessary to
Hi
I just wanted to say that Linus CodingStyle is the ONLY SANE style of
writing code in bigger projects. At university we are forced to use exactly the
braindamaged settings and styles that linux condemns. So, every good programmer
should know where to put comments. And it is unnecessary to put
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 05:19:17PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wanted to say that Linus CodingStyle is the ONLY SANE style of
writing code in bigger projects. At university we are forced to use exactly the
And the lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou write thy holy code. Indenting
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Ragnar Hojland Espinosa wrote:
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 05:19:17PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just wanted to say that Linus´ CodingStyle is the ONLY SANE style of
writing code in bigger projects. At university we are forced to use exactly the
And the lord
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Admin Mailing Lists wrote:
And the lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou write thy holy code. Indenting
shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the spaces thou
shalt count, and the number of the counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou
not count,
We would never parody Monty Python! This is an excerpt from Judas, one of
the gospels that was in dispute.
I'm sorry, I must go, as there's a man in a military uniform here, shouting
at me to stop being silly...
-josh
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:58:07 Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001,
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Admin Mailing Lists wrote:
And the lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou write thy holy code. Indenting
shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the spaces thou
shalt count, and the number of the counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou
not
92 matches
Mail list logo
