in reply to Re^8: Where to find info on low level perl internals names?
in thread Where to find info on low level perl internals names?

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
  • Comment on Re^9: Where to find info on low level perl internals names?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^10: Where to find info on low level perl internals names?
by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 26, 2011 at 20:09 UTC
    Of course the answer is obvious. It wouldn't be a good rhetorical question it it wasn't. Since that's too complicated to understand, I'll rephrase: There was absolutely no reason for me to have been thinking about "blob", and it was silly for you to bring it up.
[reply]
      1. There is nothing "amorphous" -- 1. Without a clearly defined shape or form. 2, Vague; ill-organized; unclassifiable. -- about a GV.
      2. 'Blob' was the nearest modern, common usage term I could locate to match your totally inappropriate "amorphous lump" description.
      3. I defy you to find one modern usage -- outside of a dictionary definition -- of the word 'glob' to mean "amorphous lump".

        Even if you found one, it would still be totally inapproproriate. See 1) above.

      Now just stop, cos your no good at this.

      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.
[reply]

        'Blob' was the nearest modern, common usage term I could locate to match

        You illustrated a lack of knowledge of the definition of glob I was using, so I told you what it was in rough terms. In what universe is it a sane response to find another word with a similar definition I should have let you remain ignorant!!!

        your totally inappropriate "amorphous lump" description.

        Who are you talking to? I never described them as that.

        I defy you to find one modern usage -- outside of a dictionary definition -- of the word 'glob' to mean "amorphous lump".

        Easy, I've heard it hundreds of time. On Google, «"glob of"» returns a million results.

        Even if you found one, it would still be totally inapproproriate. [sic]

        You don't even know what it means, yet you know it's inappropriate? Wow, I knew you were closed minded, but that takes the cake.

[reply]
        I defy you to find one modern usage -- outside of a dictionary definition -- of the word 'glob' to mean "amorphous lump".

        What? It's in the OED. Perhaps it's more prevalent in the US than on your island, but it's an active word with around a century of usage; etymologically it appears to be a combination of "globe" and "blob".

        Improve your skills with Modern Perl: the free book.

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom