in reply to (OT) Re^4: Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz
in thread Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz

But both were 5 days before your comment: Aug 27, 2007 at 23:14 UTC

I would guess that the Snark thread was a response to the other discussion, deliberately seperating the snark from the serious discussion, but I did not start this thread, so I can't say for sure.

  • Comment on Re^5: Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Snarky comments on the ddj perl quiz
by ysth (Canon) on Aug 30, 2007 at 00:48 UTC
    I did not know of the other thread when I started this one. However, I became aware of the quiz as a result of a chatterbox comment that may have resulted from the other thread. Just in case anybody cares.

    I admit to being a little puzzled by the "already" so long after the fact, but thought the link to the other thread was a good thing.

      I admit to being a little puzzled by the "already" so long after the fact, but thought the link to the other thread was a good thing.

      I could swear that I saw the other thread on Monday and later in the day this one appeared. Other than Seekers of Perl Wisdom I usually rely on just The Monastery Gates so a thread may be a few days old but will appear to be "new" to me if it was recently frontpaged. So it's either a question of when they were frontpaged or if I saw the other one while somehow missing this one. Sorry for any confusion!

      Update: And sorry about sort of hijacking your thread.

        Our thread, for us to use and abuse as any of us see fit.

        Did you know that:

        $x = "1.1"; $y = 0+$x;
        leaves $x taking less memory than
        $x = 1.1; $y = "$x";
        ?
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.