While I generally agree that flippant answers should be followed by greater explanations, one of my favorite Abigailisms went something like this:

Q: How do I get the date/time for this time tomorrow?

A: sleep 86400; print scalar localtime;

Q: How do I get the date/time for this time tomorrow?
A: sleep 86400; print scalar localtime;

Did you see Ilya Zakharevich's response to that? Here it is:

This implementation is very pessimal speed-wise. Here is an important optimization:

        sub tomorrow_date {
          sleep 86_400;
          return localtime();
          sleep -86_400;
        }
[download]

I think it was more like:

Q.	How do I get yesterday's date?
A.	$yesterday = localtime; sleep 86400; print "It was $yesterday\n";

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker

Totally agree. He should lighten up a bit, or bite his tongue much of the time. I do respect his talent, however. Of course, Tom has been known to be flippant and crude, although you can find valuable information in his answers.

I stopped reading USENET groups some time ago, but someone should have told Abigail 'NO WEB' to his answer ;)

We (at least us ops) can be the same way as this on #perl (EFNet), and we know it. But, the difference is that #perl isn't a helpdesk, but news groups generally are (just as PerlMonks is). It is easy to say RTFM to simple questions, found in FAQs. But, when asked at a helpdesk, a decent answer should be given. Surprisingly, not everyone knows how to use perldoc, or 'man', or how to clearly ask what they are looking for. We should, IMO, try to understand this when being 'helpers'. Anyways, just my $.02.

Cheers,
KM

I just want to gossip about some of the people I see on the Perl newsgroups...

Why? What does this have to do with Perl wisdom? How are you going to using this in a .pl file? How is this going to improve your skills with the language?

As far as I know, Abigail doesn't participate here. Why would you discuss someone behind their back, where they can't defend themselves. That's rude and immature. Furthermore, why would you want to discuss this in front of people who don't participate in the newsgroups and, as a result, have no interest in the pointless analysis over foibles found there?

(Also, I'm with jptxs, if we *must* have this sort of conversation outside of CB, please put it into Meditations. Editors, Please consider this an addtional vote to move it.)

I'm sorry if this seems a little strong, but one of the benefits of (and reasons I prefer) PM over something like \. is the simple fact that The Monastary is a more professional operation. Discussions focus on technical information that can be studied, dissected, and debated. In the process, the less practised monks learn skills they might otherwise have missed.

This is a point on the Perl Way, not a segment of "The Jerry Springer Show."

--f

And, mkmcconn, if you're that curious about The Art of Being Abigail, send a flipping email message and be done with it.

Update: Just to clarify, based on a private /msg: I'm a bit disappointed that the discussion went on as long as it did (especially in light of Re: Iron Perl Monks, Part 1), not in a specific individual.

Would you consider, good monk georgebailey, submitting an Editor requests post along that vein?
    cheers,
    Don
    striving for Perl Adept
    (it's pronounced "why-bick")

p.s. Oh yeah, I almost forgot - welcome to the Monastery!   8^)

I second ybiC's motion...

There seems to have been a few nodes posted lately in Seekers of Perl Wisdom that would appear to be better suited for Meditations or Perl Monks Discussion.

Please, new Monks. Take a look at the Perl Monks guide to the Monastery if you are not sure of where to post.

.....thus begins the path to enlightenment.

Mick

Also, higher level monks should look twice before approving nodes.

It's easy to skim a new post for clean markup and click "ok" before realizing it belongs in a different wing of the Monastery.   I know *I've* done that at least once.   8^(

What if the approving monk had to select a PM section, even if just clicking over the poster's choice, before approval took effect?
    cheers,
    Don
    striving for Perl Adept
    (it's pronounced "why-bick")

I have to say, this whole thread makes me sad. To see so many jump in the dogpile and some very high level monks too. At the very least this node should have been moved if not deleted entirely. The only thing which makes me reconsider is the part about ++ing or approving things which generate a lot of discussion, which this certianly has done. Seems to be an anomoly - I just hope it stays that way.

my $.02

"A man's maturity -- consists in having found again the
seriousness one had as a child, at play."   --Nietzsche
[download]

As for the question of Abigail's gender, it would be answered one way by meeting him in person, and another way by meeting her on the internet.

(I wonder if he speaks of her in the third person, when speaking to you face to face?)

At any rate, I certainly agree with you that it's worth while to look for and to study her JAPH contributions and other coding ideas. I had hoped to talk to him about them here, but alas...she's gone (now I'm confused).

mkmcconn
who feels quite unmonkish
having posted on a gossip thread

As for the question of Abigail's gender, it would be answered one way by meeting him in person, and another way by meeting her on the internet

Another way to answer that question would be to check his/hers geekcode. After a quick look trought the geekcode I found "x?". So the question is answered, Abigail is a she.

Another way to answer that question would be to check his/hers geekcode. After a quick look trought the geekcode I found "x?". So the question is answered, Abigail is a she.

That much, everyone knows. But the real question still remains. What gender is the person who writes as Abigail?

Tony