in reply to Re^10: Win32, fork and XS globals
in thread Win32, fork and XS globals

There it is right there. I say, and you even quote me saying: "what the macros actually do is not explained."

And your response is

the example explains exactly how to use each one.

It is impossible to make any headway with you, because you don't read what is written -- even when you've just quoted it -- and then you prattle on and on about things that simply aren't in dispute.

So, just stop!

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.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^12: Win32, fork and XS globals
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 03, 2011 at 06:50 UTC

    What they do is: create per-interpreter variables when used as per the example. The "d" fetches the context. The "p" one can be used to pass it as a parameter. The "a" one is used to received it as a parameter. Use the "_" variants if it's followed by another parameter or argument. This is all explained.

    You said that you already knew that, you said you didn't want me telling you what you already know, and you're always saying you didn't mean what I read, so I tried guessing what you actually wanted to know.

[reply]

      And you are still not reading what is written.

      Hey. You're even admitting it.

      so I tried guessing what you actually wanted to know.

      I did not ask anyone for an explanation. Much less you. I didn't ask any questions. I made a statement of opinion.

      So stop misinterpreting what is written. In fact: Just stop.

      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]

        I did not ask anyone for an explanation.

        True, and I never said you did, so I have no idea why you're telling me that.

        So stop misinterpreting what is written.

        Gee, maybe if you answered my questions when I ask for clarification? Maybe if you did more than just repeat the same unclear text? I've been trying to figure out what you're trying to communicate for how many levels now?

        And you are still not reading what is written. Hey. You're even admitting it.

        No, I didn't admit I was *still* not reading what is written. I didn't even admit that I *once* didn't not read what is written. I've been reading your posts three times before moving on.

        What I did admit to was having to guess what you meant because what you wrote made no sense.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom