Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Philip Newton]

David H. Adler wrote:
> The canonical phrasing (mjd in his guise as RETARDO): YOU CAN'T JUST
> MAKE SHIT UP AND EXPECT THE COMPUTER TO MAGICALLY KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN!

As can be easily retrieved by telling purl to "be mjd".

Cheers,
Philip

(That version has s/MEAN!/MEAN, RETARDO!/ , which is the way I remember it,
too; I think there (is|was) also an MS Comic Chat version of that on mjd's
homepage.)
-- 
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Simon Cozens]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 10:45:23AM +0100, Aaron Trevena wrote:
> > > > proposes the creation of a Parse::Perl::Approx module :)
^^
> > > 
> > > What does it do?
> > 
> > It, er... parses Perl.

Strictly speaking it doesn't do anything, due to not currently existing.

> ooh! I though only perl parsed perl.. how exactly does it parse perl...

A man who needs to go to my Parsing Perl talk at TPC!

-- 
Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his twin brother.
- Kahlil Gibran

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Jonathan Stowe]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, David H. Adler wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:07:28AM +0100, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
> > >
> > > And I realise that my description yesterday was slightly inaccurate.
> > > I said it would parse Perl approximately. A better description would be
> > > that it parses approximate Perl.
> > >
> >
> > Thus making the phrase 'you can't make up any old shit and expect it to
> > work' redundant ?
>
> The canonical phrasing (mjd in his guise as RETARDO): YOU CAN'T JUST
> MAKE SHIT UP AND EXPECT THE COMPUTER TO MAGICALLY KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN!
>

Yeah, thats what I meant. Cheers Dave.

/J\

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[David H. Adler]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:07:28AM +0100, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
> >
> > And I realise that my description yesterday was slightly inaccurate.
> > I said it would parse Perl approximately. A better description would be
> > that it parses approximate Perl.
> >
> 
> Thus making the phrase 'you can't make up any old shit and expect it to
> work' redundant ?

The canonical phrasing (mjd in his guise as RETARDO): YOU CAN'T JUST
MAKE SHIT UP AND EXPECT THE COMPUTER TO MAGICALLY KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN!

dha
-- 
David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
There are 6 billion people in the world, and only 30 billion of those
are Canadians   - Headline in the Toronto Globe and Mail

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Greg McCarroll]

* Dave Cross ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> At Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:07:28 +0100 (BST), Jonathan Stowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
> > >
> > > And I realise that my description yesterday was slightly inaccurate.
> > > I said it would parse Perl approximately. A better description 
> > > would be that it parses approximate Perl.
> > 
> > Thus making the phrase 'you can't make up any old shit and expect it 
> > to work' redundant ?
> 
> Well, not just "any old shit" - just how mad do you think I am?[1]. But 
> maybe it would deal with the occasional typo. Or perhaps keywords in a 
> different language... or something like that.
> 
> > Crack Head.
> 
> Thank you :)

Well the thing is that Dave's proposed module wouldn't score high on CiP,
the same goes for Sub::Approx. However modules that used them seriously
would, so maybe we need another term for this ...

Crack Dealer - One who produces modules, code snippets or techniques
that will in themselves not high in the CiP rating, helps others encourage
high CiP ratings.

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Dave Cross]

At Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:07:28 +0100 (BST), Jonathan Stowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
> >
> > And I realise that my description yesterday was slightly inaccurate.
> > I said it would parse Perl approximately. A better description 
> > would be that it parses approximate Perl.
> 
> Thus making the phrase 'you can't make up any old shit and expect it 
> to work' redundant ?

Well, not just "any old shit" - just how mad do you think I am?[1]. But 
maybe it would deal with the occasional typo. Or perhaps keywords in a 
different language... or something like that.

> Crack Head.

Thank you :)

Dave..

[1] Rhetorical!

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Jonathan Stowe]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
>
> And I realise that my description yesterday was slightly inaccurate.
> I said it would parse Perl approximately. A better description would be
> that it parses approximate Perl.
>

Thus making the phrase 'you can't make up any old shit and expect it to
work' redundant ?

Crack Head.

/J\

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Dave Cross]

At Thu, 29 Mar 2001 10:45:23 +0100 (BST), Aaron Trevena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
> 
> > At Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:44:07 +0100, Robin Houston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:35:33AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Would this be an appropriate time to point out that my TPC talk 
> > > > proposes the creation of a Parse::Perl::Approx module :)
> > > 
> > > What does it do?
> > 
> > It, er... parses Perl.
> 
> ooh! I though only perl parsed perl.. how exactly does it parse 
> perl... no its okay I'll look at the pod.. /me cpan's.

Well, I wouldn't look for it just yet. It's only a mad idea right now.

The phrase you're looking for is "only perl can parse Perl", but if
you look at Damian Conway's projects page at 
 you'll see that he's
planning a Parse::Perl module which will allow Perl (as opposed to perl)
to parse Perl. My proposed module builds on that.

And I realise that my description yesterday was slightly inaccurate.
I said it would parse Perl approximately. A better description would be
that it parses approximate Perl.

Is that any clearer?

Dave...

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Aaron Trevena]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:

> At Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:44:07 +0100, Robin Houston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:35:33AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote:
> > > 
> > > Would this be an appropriate time to point out that my TPC talk 
> > > proposes the creation of a Parse::Perl::Approx module :)
> > 
> > What does it do?
> 
> It, er... parses Perl.

ooh! I though only perl parsed perl.. how exactly does it parse perl... no
its okay I'll look at the pod.. /me cpan's.

A.

-- 
http://termisoc.org/~betty"> Betty @ termisoc.org 
"As a youngster Fred fought sea battles on the village pond using a 
complex system of signals he devised that was later adopted by the Royal 
Navy. " (this email has nothing to do with any organisation except me)

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[David Cantrell]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:52:23AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote:
> At Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:44:07 +0100, Robin Houston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:35:33AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote:
> > > 
> > > Would this be an appropriate time to point out that my TPC talk 
> > > proposes the creation of a Parse::Perl::Approx module :)
> > 
> > What does it do?
> 
> It, er... parses Perl.
> 
> Approximately.

For a twisted example of approximately parsing a subset of perl, see
http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/tech/perl-dep.  It's not pretty, and
I probably wouldn't write it that way now.  It was originally written
whilst at Oven in an attempt to compensate for the total lack of
documentation on the ecountries.com project.  Aside from the documented
weaknesses (it doesn't try to correctly handle comments or quoted text,
nor does it know about the evils of EXPORT), it is surprisingly
accurate at finding dependencies between files and subroutines.

-- 
David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

This is a signature.  There are many like it but this one is mine.

** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important **

 PGP signature

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Dave Cross]

At Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:44:07 +0100, Robin Houston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:35:33AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote:
> > 
> > Would this be an appropriate time to point out that my TPC talk 
> > proposes the creation of a Parse::Perl::Approx module :)
> 
> What does it do?

It, er... parses Perl.

Approximately.

Dave...
[I may practice the talk at the next technical meeting]

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Greg McCarroll]

* David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 01:37:14PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> > David H. Adler wrote:
> > > What, no CiP rating???
> > 
> > Well, there wasn't any Perl code included. But it should be pretty
> > straightforward to hack the algorithm together, or might as well hijack the
> > Convert::Base32 module for the purpose.
> 
> Maybe we should implement a pCiP rating, for *potential* for CiP, based
> on how marvellously deranged a program is conceptually...
> 

motion carried, todo list increased

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Matthew Byng-Maddick]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
> At Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:38:16 +0100 (BST), Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
> > > Would this be an appropriate time to point out that my TPC talk 
> > > proposes the creation of a Parse::Perl::Approx module :)
> > You are an evil man.
> You know I'm going to take that as a compliment :)

Sick and twisted too? :)

MBM

-- 
Matthew Byng-Maddick   Home: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  +44 20  8980 5714  (Home)
http://colondot.net/   Work: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +44 7956 613942  (Mobile)
I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it. -- Mae West

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Robin Houston]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 11:35:33AM -0500, Dave Cross wrote:
> 
> Would this be an appropriate time to point out that my TPC talk 
> proposes the creation of a Parse::Perl::Approx module :)

What does it do?

 .robin.

-- 
Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas!

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Dave Cross]

At Wed, 28 Mar 2001 17:38:16 +0100 (BST), Matthew Byng-Maddick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
> > Would this be an appropriate time to point out that my TPC talk 
> > proposes the creation of a Parse::Perl::Approx module :)
> 
> You are an evil man.

You know I'm going to take that as a compliment :)

Dave...

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Matthew Byng-Maddick]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
> Would this be an appropriate time to point out that my TPC talk 
> proposes the creation of a Parse::Perl::Approx module :)

You are an evil man.

MBM

-- 
Matthew Byng-Maddick   Home: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  +44 20  8980 5714  (Home)
http://colondot.net/   Work: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +44 7956 613942  (Mobile)
I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it. -- Mae West

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Dave Cross]

At Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:33:16 -0500, "David H. Adler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 01:37:14PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> > David H. Adler wrote:
> > > What, no CiP rating???
> > 
> > Well, there wasn't any Perl code included. But it should be pretty
> > straightforward to hack the algorithm together, or might as well 
> > hijack the Convert::Base32 module for the purpose.
> 
> Maybe we should implement a pCiP rating, for *potential* for CiP, 
> based on how marvellously deranged a program is conceptually...

Would this be an appropriate time to point out that my TPC talk 
proposes the creation of a Parse::Perl::Approx module :)

Dave...

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[David H. Adler]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2001 at 01:37:14PM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> David H. Adler wrote:
> > What, no CiP rating???
> 
> Well, there wasn't any Perl code included. But it should be pretty
> straightforward to hack the algorithm together, or might as well hijack the
> Convert::Base32 module for the purpose.

Maybe we should implement a pCiP rating, for *potential* for CiP, based
on how marvellously deranged a program is conceptually...

dha
-- 
David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
"Chicken Wire?" - Lou Marini

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Philip Newton]

David H. Adler wrote:
> What, no CiP rating???

Well, there wasn't any Perl code included. But it should be pretty
straightforward to hack the algorithm together, or might as well hijack the
Convert::Base32 module for the purpose.

Cheers,
Philip
-- 
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Jonathan Stowe]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote:
>
> agreed, this is just f*cking crazy, sorry for the swearing, but this
> is the craziest thing i've seen this year
>

I wouldnt get too carried away after all its only march :)

/J\

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[David H. Adler]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 01:07:44PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> 
> agreed, this is just f*cking crazy, sorry for the swearing, but this
> is the craziest thing i've seen this year

What, no CiP rating???

dha
-- 
David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
Just Install Perl.  - Chris Nandor

Re: Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Dave Cross]

At Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:39:34 +0200, Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
> > The other possibility, I guess, given that it's london.pm is 
> > to make it relate to buffy in some way :)
> 
> That reminds me of an idea I had this morning on the way to work -- 
> encode text using "Buffy" with uppercase and lowercase letters: 
> uppercase letters stand for "0" bits and lowercase letters for "1" 
> bits. (Or, if you prefer, bit 5 / 2**5 / 32 of each character 
> represents the bit to be encoded.) Then you just have to chop the 
> message into 5-bit chunks (adding 0 bits at the end if needed to pad 
> to a 5-bit boundary) and translate.

I'm pretty sure I've seen something like this before. You encode text
using the word 'moo'. I think it used upper and lower case 'o' and also
a zero. I'm sure there was a web page somewhere that converted text
to and from 'moo's.

Or maybe I dreamt it.

Dave...

Buffycode (was Re: "That book")

[Philip Newton]

Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
> The other possibility, I guess, given that it's london.pm is 
> to make it relate to buffy in some way :)

That reminds me of an idea I had this morning on the way to work -- encode
text using "Buffy" with uppercase and lowercase letters: uppercase letters
stand for "0" bits and lowercase letters for "1" bits. (Or, if you prefer,
bit 5 / 2**5 / 32 of each character represents the bit to be encoded.) Then
you just have to chop the message into 5-bit chunks (adding 0 bits at the
end if needed to pad to a 5-bit boundary) and translate.

"London.pm"[1], in this method, turns into "BuFFy bUFFy bUffy bUffY bufFY
buFFy BUFfy Buffy BufFy buFFY bUffy BUffy BUFFY buFfy BuFFY". See? Bears no
resemblance to "London.pm" at all; all spies' attempts at figuring out the
true meaning will be thwarted!

Alernatively, there's the "beer" code, which has the advantage of mapping 4
bits handily to one nybble; "London.pm" then turns into "BeER beER BeeR beer
BeeR beeR BeeR BeER BeeR beer BeeR beeR BEeR beeR Beer BEER BeeR beEr".

Cheers,
Philip

[1] "London.pm" = 4c 6f 6e 64 6f 6e 2e 70 6d hex, or 01001100 0110
01101110 01100100 0110 01101110 00101110 0111 01101101 binary, or
01001 10001 10111 10110 11100 11001 00011 0 01101 11000 10111 00111
0 11011 01+000 in 5-bit groups
-- 
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.