What's wrong with this script's logic/or what's wrong with mark ... (part duex)

While I appreciate that the mods need to lock or toss threads and end ongoing issues, I will and I have the right, to respond to posts that use lies and bogus claims to defame me. This is my right and it is expected. Loack the thread after the people involved have a chance to respond, and don't leave it unresolved and people without a chance to defend their character that has been attacked. That is fair. That said, allow me to respond, then lock the thread.

In regards to:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showth...threadid=44660

I will now respond to end this...


To bitserve:

Originally posted by bitserve

I'm not going to guess who you are referring to,
You wouldn't know who I was referring to, because I mentioned people that are famous and infamous in the Perl community. Since you don't know Perl, I didn't expect you would, but it was worth a try. You see, Randall, Tom and Larry wrote the major parts of Perl and all the books you are trying to talk about like you read them. They, and many other's, have fun, use different delimiters and if you want to argue with these people.. well, actually, you may as well at this point....

but find one reference of a comma being used as a delimiter for the substitue function in the PERL man pages, and I'll show five times or more than that where a pipe is used. The pipe character is a much more unique character, especially when parsing an HTML document, than the comma is! You are welcome to code however you want, but you won't be checking your nasty code into any cvs respository of any PERL projects that I know of.
There's either standard, or there's not, as I stated. If you said "more common", fine. However, :what's common: and what's :standard: in regards to programming rules and programming preferences, are not the same or even close. Of course, this is the best you can do, so I'll let you wallow in your filth and move on...



You corrected no oversight in my code,
Right, that was more than a simple oversight, I agree. This is why I couldn't allow it.

let alone a major one!
Actually, it was a major one. If you knew how to program, you'd know this and how important it is.

You were the one being nitpicky,
No, I was being serious and genuine. You were being reckless in your ignorance -- and it has to be corrected.

when you obviously don't even know what you're talking about!
Yes, you continue to claim that. I am pretty sure I know what I'm talking about, when some brat is on a forum telling me I don't, because THEY don't realize how important these things are that they think "aren't needed". You've got a real problem. For you to continue this claim, well, it's just ludicrous.

So you care if the file is there and can be opened for reading,
Yes, that's important, you see, when you want to open a file and read it's contents.

but not if it has a body tag.
If it found a closing body tag, it added the hyperlink above it -- which is what the user said he wanted. I did my part, it was correct.

I was saying that if you're going to initiate some checks, you might as well check to see if your stupid substituion succeeded.
Yes, yes.. you've mentioned how "stupid" you think my substitution is.. we all get it... give it a rest. There was nothing stupid about the code, simply because you were offended by me correcting you. This goes beyond "there's more than one way to do it", and while that might be true, I don't have any problem as long as someone does it right and not recklessly. Again, substitutions don't need to check if it replaced any value, if the function itself is replacing a value only when and IF it finds it. There's nothing to check, even though I could have -- why would I? Why would you? Why would anyone? That's going too far.

 

 

 

 

Top