Re^17: $class = ref $class || $class (not tye)

Your restraint and manners are admirable. I have the opinion that my faux pas really irked you and that you're writing below your usual level. So again: Sorry.

Read emotion into text-only on-line communication at your peril. (: My restraint was certainly lacking. I also use "you" when I mean "one" because I find that writing "one should" sounds pompous even though I hate not having a good distinction for that. Perhaps I just need to get over sounding pompous. So much of this could easily be taken personally (by you, rir) that wasn't actually directed at you.

[ Come to think of it, I should also use "y'all" more. I actually like that word and it could even defuse some of the impression of pomposity (along with the spelling errors -- that I only occasionally make on purpose). Anyway, some of those "you"s should have been "y'all"s as well. ]

So, sorry for my lack of restraint and thus lack of manners. (And thank you for the compliment.) It has more to do with limited time than ire at you or your remark. Wanting to deny the remark helped to motivate me, but much of the heat is directed at concepts not people.

I'd like to clarify my position on a couple of (technical) points but now is not a good time for that. I just wanted to set the record straight that a simple apology for your fairly minor error is sufficient. I accept it and forgive you, of course.

I'm sorry I didn't take the time to more carefully craft my reply. I completely understand one worrying that dire offense has been served when reading such a reply. It was hurried and sloppy and so contains misexpressions and also errors. I'll try to straighten some of that out more explicitly when I allocate more time for the endeavor.

And thanks for your restraint and manners in responding. It is nice to take an (unintentional) step toward a flame fest and get a nudge backward rather than a shove forward. :)

- tye - The Pompous Texan

Comment on Re^17: $class = ref $class \|\| $class (not tye)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
(Re:)+ $class = ref $class \|\| $class (not tye) by rir (Vicar) on Mar 06, 2003 at 17:28 UTC
It is better to address the reader than write about the abstract person. For a USAer I am formal and retiring yet I rarely use one when you will serve. I finding using one is not pompous, just unengaging. Here we are in a poor situation for the use of you, we might wish to address each other personally and address the readership at large. Confusion between the general and specific second person probably indicates some structural deficiencies in a post. Given the informality of the forum this is to be expected. The use of the reader is more suited to some styles fiction when one wishes to background the reader. I recommend against descending to dialect, y'all, as a supposed improvement. Dialect is usually more distracting than helpful. I am sympathetic to your intent. The parallels to my statements regarding `$obj->new` are striking. Your apology is accepted. Your post was very mild considering the provocation. I look forward to more of your thoughts on the matter. You mentioned programming guidelines earlier. The use of programming guidelines is an interesting tangent to the issue. It is a formal declaration of what issues are not to be thought about when creating code. Coding practices should be determined at the lowest possible organizational level for the smallest reasonable workgroup. This yields expediency while still allowing some chance of improving the quality of code through better ordinary feedback and cross pollination between groups.	[reply] [d/l]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

(Re:)+ $class = ref $class || $class (not tye)
by rir (Vicar) on Mar 06, 2003 at 17:28 UTC

one

you

one

you

The use of the reader is more suited to some styles fiction when one wishes to background the reader.

I recommend against descending to dialect, y'all, as a supposed improvement. Dialect is usually more distracting than helpful. I am sympathetic to your intent. The parallels to my statements regarding $obj->new are striking.

Your apology is accepted. Your post was very mild considering the provocation.

I look forward to more of your thoughts on the matter.

You mentioned programming guidelines earlier.

The use of programming guidelines is an interesting tangent to the issue. It is a formal declaration of what issues are not to be thought about when creating code. Coding practices should be determined at the lowest possible organizational level for the smallest reasonable workgroup. This yields expediency while still allowing some chance of improving the quality of code through better ordinary feedback and cross pollination between groups.

[reply]
[d/l]