in reply to Re^8: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references (op order)
in thread Order of evaluation/interpolation of references

Sorry, but that makes no sense in relation to what I posted.

That's why I asked what you considered to be a bug. My guess: The lack of copying by operators causes other operators to behave differently than you'd expect.

If you deliberately hide information, you only have yourself to blame for any ensuing confusion.

  • Comment on Re^9: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references (op order)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^10: Order of evaluation/interpolation of references (op order)
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Mar 09, 2012 at 02:04 UTC

    Again. Nothing in your post bears any relation upon what I posted. (Your doing this a lot lately?)

    You might just as well have posted: "The french dog lick mustard blue sky cheese". It would make just as much sense.

    Read the damn post! Then reply in whole, complete, relevant, joined up sentences.

    And I hid nothing.

    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    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.

    The start of some sanity?
[reply]

      Wow. I saw ikegamis post 3 times, and it looked radically different all three times.

      Current 

      <blockquote><p><i>Sorry, but that makes no sense in relation to what I
+ posted.</i></blockquote>

<p>That's why I asked what you considered to be a bug. My guess: The l
+ack of copying by operators causes other operators to behave differen
+tly than you'd expect.

<p>If you deliberately hide information, you only have yourself to bla
+me for any ensuing confusion

      [download]

      Before that 

       
<blockquote><p><i>Sorry, but that makes no sense in relation to what I
+ posted.</i></blockquote>

<p>Then what you posted incorrectly assumes lvalue results only affect
+ concatenation.

      [download]

      Before that it was something equally grumpy about being confused, but not resembling the above two sentiments in any other way.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

      And I hid nothing.

      You didn't answer my questions.

      Furthermore, the post has nothing to do with the one to which it is a reply, and you provided no explanation to that effect whatsoever.

      It has been answered, with a properly updated title.

[reply]
        You didn't answer my questions.

        I didn't answer your questions because they did not relate to anything I posted. I'm fed up to the back teeth of following you down blind alleys.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom