|
Re^3: Perl 5.11.0 now available
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 03, 2009 at 21:05 UTC
|
It's not equivalent, so it's not commutative.
Vulgar means ordinary, ... It's actually redundant.
In both cases, the problem is not with the strict interpretation of the descriptions, but rather with the inadequacy of the explanations as to their consequences.
Most every programmer, new or old, good or mediocre, understands that x-y is different to y-x, but perhaps only 5% or so would ever describe subtraction as non-communicative. And far less as "commutatively broken".
Beyond the value judgement that certain combinations of letters (words), are deemed vulgar in some circles, the only relatively common use of the word vulgar is "vulgar fractions". Also known as "common fractions". Which basically reduces to just "fractions".
Neither the sentence nor the overall understanding is enhanced by the use of "vulgar" in that position. It is technical or scientific language used to convey a false impression of meaningful technical or scientific content. Which is one (of the more polite), definitions of "technobabble".
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.
| [reply] |
|
|
Most every programmer, new or old, good or mediocre, understands that x-y is different to y-x, but perhaps only 5% or so would ever describe subtraction as non-communicative. And far less as "commutatively broken".
I sure hope not.
Noone said "commutatively broken" except you. You seem to think the doc say that smart matching is "commutatively broken", but it doesn't say that at all. It's commutativity that was broken, as documented again earlier in the document. Commutativity of the smart match operator was broken by 5.10.1.
the only relatively common use of the word vulgar is "vulgar fractions". Also known as "common fractions". Which basically reduces to just "fractions".
Same here. Just scalar.
| [reply] |
|
|
You seem to think ... Noone said
The document says: "commutativity breakage". I adjusted the tense of that to fit with the tense of my sentence.
If you cannot make that leap of inference, perhaps you shouldn't...
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.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but perhaps only 5% or so would ever describe subtraction as non-communicative
Then one can only wonder what they make of the idea of left- or right-associativity in Operator Precedence and Associativity. (UPDATE: On re-reading, the substitution of ‘communicative’ for ‘commutative’ is quite funny.)
technical or scientific language used to convey a false impression of meaningful technical or scientific content
Or perhaps “unusual-to-domain language used to convey an impression of humour”, a special case of ‘joke’. (If ‘vulgar’ were some technical CS term, then your objection might be appropriate, but I think that's not the case.)
Anyway, much of this thread has been occupied with patches to documentation, and your where/when catch was a good one (it bugged me, too). If you find the language that offensive, and you've got better, then why not submit a patch?
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
|
|
one can only wonder what they make of the idea of left- or right-associativity
You imply that "would (n)ever describe", means the same thing as "do not understand". It doesn't.
If ... you've got better, then why not submit a patch?
Because I can recognise bad architecture, it doesn't mean I believe that I could design a better building.
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.
| [reply] |
Re^3: Perl 5.11.0 now available
by JadeNB (Chaplain) on Oct 03, 2009 at 21:02 UTC
|
In other words, a code ref on the LHS will be treated the same as any other scalar. It's actually redundant with the previous phrase.
I don't think that it really is. UPDATE: Oops, but I'm wrong, because I misremembered the original sentence. The remainder of the post is now preserved only for posterity.
A commutativity breakage means that there are some circumstances in which the smart match depends on order, not that the smart match is always completely determined by the right-hand member. Indeed, for example, a smatch $scalar ~~ \%hash behaves differently when $scalar happens to be a hashref or arrayref from the way it behaves for coderefs. I think there's nothing about the phrase “commutativity breakage” to indicate this, so it needs to be made explicit in the following sentence (or elsewhere).
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
|
|
I don't think that it really is.
Why not? How does "treated like any vulgar scalar" differ from "no longer treated specially"? (I said phrase, not sentence)
A commutativity breakage means that there are some circumstances in which the smart match depends on order, not that the smart match is always completely determined by the right-hand member.
I know. I never said otherwise.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply]
[d/l] |