Re^8: Is the documentation for Perl 5.20 'pack' correct?

What an idiot. For the fourth time, go read the damn docs before mouthing off about how they're wrong.

And still you are too arrogant to stop and think.

I read the documentation before my first post in this thread.

It is your entirely consistent, puppy-like, slavish devotion that "the documentation must be right", that won't allow you to see that your interpretation very frequently differs markedly from that the average user's interpretation.

You are far from the 'average user'; and so am I. The difference between us is that I can step back from my expertise and apply a little common sense, to see beyond the insider's interpretation; and look for alternate interpretations that can arise from the phraseology. A feat seemingly beyond you.

You are without a doubt, the dumbest, smart person I have ever encountered.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

I'm with torvalds on this Agile (and TDD) debunked I told'em LLVM was the way to go. But did they listen!

Comment on Re^8: Is the documentation for Perl 5.20 'pack' correct?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^9: Is the documentation for Perl 5.20 'pack' correct? by Anonymous Monk on Jul 07, 2015 at 19:50 UTC
'I read the documentation before my first post in this thread.' But you did not go back and validate that you read it correctly, did you? No sir! Not BullyUk! "I'm so smart I only have to read things once!" 'You are without a doubt, the dumbest, smart person I have ever encountered.' Many of us feel that way about you ... after all, if you can't do ... teach.	[reply]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.