*
' to '.*?
' rather than just '.*
'?]]>
Apparently this inconsistency doesn't come up in other languages because they don't allow overloading a single "object" with both hash and array behavior, so it's always unambiguous which behavior is meant. Perl allows that kind of overloading at the price of needing different "operators" (e.g. {} and []) for hashes and arrays.
]]>This issue is not about making rules or being PC. It's about saying "I'm sorry, I didn't realize that was offensive to you" and then being a little more careful next time because you value the other person being in your community.
]]>Maybe what's appropriate by the water cooler is not appropriate in a public forum (duh!). Perl's all about context, right? We (the community members) should try to always think about the context and try to respond appropriately and hopefully with some amount of calmness and respect.
On p5p (which I have just started frequenting), I just yesterday sent a personal email to Ricardo Signes thanking him for his calm response to a pretty heated thread. That's impressive and shows some real maturity - a good trait to have in a pumpking.
]]>I applaud your very calm reply to the OP and your linking Schwern's keynote. That was the right way to handle it. There will always be some conflicts/lack of sensitivity/etc in a forum like perlmonks -- if this is as bad as it gets, we're doing pretty good. (Not to say it couldn't be better and we shouldn't try to make it better.)
And when you bring up this topic in other threads, maybe you could let others help with defending that point of view, so you won't feel like a voice in the wilderness. You are not the only one who sees things this way.
]]>