Re^13: Where to find info on low level perl internals names?

In what universe is it a sane response to find another word with a similar definition

The Universe of Ikegamisms, where you have to try and interpret sentences like "Blob has a very similar meaning to blob, but why would I have been thinking of blob?"(*); and make sense of concepts like using an archaic word(**) for "amorphous lump" to label a concrete, documented, regular data-structure.

(*Since silently modified. But nothing new about that!)

(** A word so archaic, that despite my above average vocabulary, I had never encountered this sense of, until I looked it up.)

Done now?

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.

Comment on Re^13: Where to find info on low level perl internals names?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^14: Where to find info on low level perl internals names? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Oct 27, 2011 at 01:05 UTC
If BrowserUk has never encountered before a word, it's "not modern", it's archaic. Despite gobbles of evidence of its existence. Couldn't spend one second to look for it? We don't even speak the same dialect, yet you're sure that a word I've heard hundreds of times isn't a word. If Doctor Who is any indication, next you'll say that "toilet" (the fixture) and trunk (of a car) are not words either.	[reply]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.