Re^2: Another day, another nit

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Another day, another nit by chromatic (Archbishop) on Dec 21, 2005 at 20:14 UTC
I usually don't care for linguistic drift, but remember that English capitalization "rules" developed quite a while before reprinting literal commands for computers accurately became necessary. Some American English quoting "rules" tend to break other commands if typed literally as written too.	[reply]
Re^3: Another day, another nit by phaylon (Curate) on Dec 22, 2005 at 12:12 UTC
Doesn't english differentiate between nouns and names? The name of the language is 'Perl', like Peter, Paul and Mephistopheles, and the noun meaning the interpreter is 'perl'. I don't see any problems with the distinction of those two, but maybe that's because I'm not a native english speaker. Also, language is evolving, Perl moves on to version 6, maybe english should come along too scnr ;) Ordinary morality is for ordinary people. -- Aleister Crowley	[reply]
Re^3: Another day, another nit by Eimi Metamorphoumai (Deacon) on Dec 22, 2005 at 18:08 UTC
It's clear to me that the English language you're referring to isn't the one I grew up speaking. "Perl" is the name of a particular langauge. Therefore, it's a proper noun, like "Larry", the name of the guy who wrote it, and for that matter "English", which you don't seem to have a problem with (not "the english language"). What in the world makes you think that "Perl" isn't a proper noun? If anything, object to "`perl`" being used uncapitalized for the name of the interpreter. But be aware that it's in conformance with a lot of tradition for computers (since the names of commands are usually case sensitive, it's common to leave them in all lower case even at the begining of sentences).	[reply] [d/l]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.