Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
go ahead... be a heretic
 
PerlMonks  

(dws)Re: Re: Re: Re: use base qw(Base) (was: Method calling question...)

by dws (Chancellor)
on May 01, 2001 at 09:30 UTC ( [id://76879]=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Re: Re: use base qw(Base) (was: Method calling question...)
in thread Method calling question...

That's all I'm looking for. Some sort of sense (even if it's "I don't like it") if it gets downvoted so quickly.

Perhaps this might help. Let's revisit the post in question.

That'd be described in perldoc base, wouldn't it? Have you looked there first?
The factual part of the post is
That'd be described in perldoc base
Leaving
, wouldn't it? Have you looked there first?
If these phrases aren't factual, what are they? Well, to my ear,
, wouldn't it?
is a transparent shorthand for
, but you should know that.
and serves no other purpose than to deliver a soft-gloved backhand. Thus offended, it's easy to read
Have you looked there first?
as another barb. Barbs words now outweight factual words 7 to 6. Leave off the barbs and you have
That'd be described in perldoc base
Fix up the formatting a bit to embolden "perldoc base", and you have a nice, succinct, factual response with no baggage.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
On reading tone accurately
by merlyn (Sage) on May 01, 2001 at 17:45 UTC
    Hmm. That's the problem then. In a classroom, I would have said this with a smirk and a smile on my face, so that the questioner would have seen it was a gentle nudge as a reminder that everything in Perl is documented somewhere, and that since we've already seen the pattern "use XXX" is documented with "perldoc XXX", it makes sense to look in "perldoc base" for "use base".

    But out of context, I can see how this statement might be offensive.

    Shoot.

    I write like I talk, and I try to list emotional content to go along with it. I'm almost always smiling when I write. If you've met me in person, you know I rarely get angry, and even then, it's always at specific actions, not at people.

    So what do I do? Stop writing for fear of offending someone? Or just know that people can handle themselves.

    In fact, the response I got from jplindstrom seems to indicate factually that they did not think of that, and that they took no offense at my tone.

    And that brings me to another point. Maybe I'm accurately reading the state of the person I'm writing, but others are coming incorrectly to their rescue because they would be offended, even though the original poster wasn't. I think that's pretty silly, and a waste of your time. That seems to have happened twice that I can recall, including this one.

    Maybe I do know my audience pretty well. Maybe if I was writing one of the others that downvoted me, I would have written it differently.

    I'd be curious to see if jplindstrom voted me up or down on the node. You know, that's really the only real vote that matters.

    And I just reread the note. I can't help someone until I know what they've already done on their own. I was genuinely asking if they'd looked there and found it confusing. That was my curiosity, and my quick way of asking was "did you look there first?". There was absolutely no condescension intended in that statement. It was completely about needing to know more to help further.

    -- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

      So what do I do? Stop writing for fear of offending someone? Or just know that people can handle themselves.

      Fare forward. Know that you're helping others, and show people that you can handle yourself by accepting the occassional -- with grace.

      "In fact, the response I got from jplindstrom seems to indicate factually that they did not think of that, and that they took no offense at my tone."

      I didn't. Actually, I didn't even see the node until after you updated it with that list of yours. The list I found annoying more than anything else. That's not what I'm here for. I'm here to learn Perl (and occationally contribute what I can).

      I appreciate your answer to my question. I don't appreciate the meta discussion it produced.

      (On the other hand, meta discussion is in my experience one of the key indicators of a working online community (sorry for being so -97 :) , so maybe I should be thankful...)

      "I'd be curious to see if jplindstrom voted me up or down on the node. You know, that's really the only real vote that matters."

      You know, I still haven't voted on it. Sorry. Ironically, that also means I have no idea what score it has. But I'm not that curious, and you now know what I think of it; other nodes, most likely one or two of yours, deserve the ++ more.

      Now, on the "personality vote" issue... I'm not even gonna go there.

      /Johan Lindström

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://76879]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this?Last hourOther CB clients
Other Users?
Others meditating upon the Monastery: (5)
As of 2024-03-29 08:41 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found