Re^3: Perl 5.11.0 now available

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.

RIP PCW It is as I've been saying!(Audio until 20090817)

Comment on Re^3: Perl 5.11.0 now available

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Perl 5.11.0 now available by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 03, 2009 at 21:30 UTC
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]
Re^5: Perl 5.11.0 now available by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 03, 2009 at 22:23 UTC
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. RIP PCW It is as I've been saying!(Audio until 20090817)	[reply]
Re^6: Perl 5.11.0 now available by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 03, 2009 at 23:30 UTC
Are you claiming you changed the tense of commutativity (a noun) or of breakage (also a noun)? It's not what happened. Where the docs talk of the breakage of the commutativity of the smart match operator, you talk of the commutativity of the breakage of the smart match operator. That's nonsense. In short, broken commutativity != commutatively broken (I guess English grammar isn't commutative.)	[reply]
Re^7: Perl 5.11.0 now available by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 04, 2009 at 03:18 UTC
Re^8: Perl 5.11.0 now available by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 04, 2009 at 04:24 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^4: Perl 5.11.0 now available by JadeNB (Chaplain) on Oct 03, 2009 at 21:39 UTC
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]
Re^5: Perl 5.11.0 now available by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Oct 03, 2009 at 22:51 UTC
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. RIP PCW It is as I've been saying!(Audio until 20090817)	[reply]