I think a response to a posting of "I do not know how to split properly" should include a link to the documentation and the advice to read it, and of course I wish more people coming to post here would read the docs and Google their question first. But apparently you and the other anon have a different sense of rudeness than me. IMO:

Positive: "The split documentation describes its behavior well and contains several helpful examples. If you have any specific questions about split please don't hesitate to ask, and remember to follow the advice in 'How do I post a question effectively?' to get the most effective help."

Civil: "The split function is documented, with examples, in split."

Rude: "so read the documentation."

A pure "read the docs" without anything additional - which is what this whole little subthread is about - is entirely useless because the response "Why don't you go figure it out on your own?", whether rude or not, applies to every question asked here. As for rudeness, remember that RTFM has two equally valid synonyms: "Read The Fine Manual" and "Read The F**king Manual", and it is not civil. Even if the post in question isn't that rude, or maybe it wasn't even intended to be rude, it's still useless.

Well, considering how "specific" was the "question", the answer was about as specific as it could have been. Apparently the description of the split() built-in is not the only doc GuiPerl needs to read. The whole of perldata for example. Seems to me he's mostly stabbing in the dark not really knowing what he's doing.

BTW, we are all supposed to be programmers in here. If you want a wishy washy feel good yada yada you're probably not at the right place.

Jenda
Enoch was right!
Enjoy the last years of Rome.

If you want a wishy washy feel good yada yada you're probably not at the right place.

No, I don't need "feel good" posts everywhere, and my own posting style is probably just as often like the "civil" example above as the "positive" one (and hopefully only very rarely the "rude" one, in which case I don't mind those nodes being downvoted). But consider the opposite of what you're saying - I assume you don't want the Monastery to be a place where rudeness and posts like the one in question are the norm.

Anyway, that's not the point I was trying to make. I usually value content more than tone, it's just that the node in question is lacking in both, so I was hoping to change the minds the monks who upvoted it a bit. Who knows how successful I was :-)

...But apparently you and the other anon have a different sense of rudeness than me...

Good.

Please take this as an opportunity to learn more about the english language and keeping your cool

civil means behaving in a reasonable or polite manner.

"so read the documentation" is not the same as RTFM , its the very definition of civil

and its as overly friendly as "Well good friend , this is the short article that explains that particular function so well , if you take the time to read it, I'm sure you will be able to use split like the champion that you are in very short order, good luck and have good fun, here is a cookie , enjoy"

Next time you encounter postings that anger you write it down but do not publish

Next time you find an answer isn't helpful according to your standards , do the thing you think should have been done, write the better answer , be the change you want to see :)

This post, like this one, clearly misses all the points made by its parent, but I'm assuming that, along with its insults and condescending tone, is intentional.

Just to clear something up: Perhaps you (and Jenda) are assuming that the original complaint was written by the same anon as the nodes following it - they weren't. I joined the discussion because I think the "so read the documentation" comment didn't deserve the support it got.