Proposed new rule

Ruby
21

On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 03:30:22AM +0900, Bill K. wrote:

Would discussions about the [META] tag itself qualify as
[META][META] ?

Uh-oh. What do we do if we’re talking about metaprogramming?

–
Chad P. [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

“A script is what you give the actors. A program
is what you give the audience.” - Larry Wall

22

Justin B. [email protected] writes:

I agree. using [SOLUTION] by itself makes sense.

I like the idea of extending this concept further. Is it already a
“recommendation” that new software announcements (or updates) have
[ANN] in their subject line?

How about [QUESTION] for people looking for programming help, as well? ;o)

… and then we can have [ANSWER] for the responses, not to mention
other things like [SUGGESTION], [RANT], [LANGUAGE-WAR], etc. And since
[OT] is already in use, for the sake of parity, we should also have
[ON-TOPIC]. :slight_smile:

23

We already have a few established tags which people DO use and nobody
seems to be averse towards. [ANN], [RAILS], and [QUIZ]. so it seems
like the only argument is over exactly how many there should be…not
whether we should have them at all. so i don’t see why a suggestion to
add 2 more should be mocked as the equivalent of saying we make a
specific tag for everything under the sun…we have 3 already. i
suggested we have a whopping 5! watch out–i’m crrrrrrazy!

i respect the logical arguments to stick with just the 3 and that’s
fine but that’s no reason to act like one or two more is completely
outlandish.

24

Chad P. [email protected] wrote:

How about [META] for discussions about the list itself? :wink:

Would discussions about the [META] tag itself qualify as
[META][META] ?

Uh-oh. What do we do if we’re talking about metaprogramming?

Use an eigentag, of course.

martin

25

Justin B. wrote:

outlandish.
I expect that a general community consensus will determine what get
used. People make up subject tags as they see fit, and if they strike a
chord with others, they get picked up. Useless or confusing tags simply
go away.

I’ve seen [SOLUTION] used when people have been pursuing some general
problem (e.g., getting Ruby MySQL binary bindings working on Win32) and
finally reach a solution. So it has a history already.

–

http://www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
Ruby Code & Style - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com - Building Better Tools

26

Bill K. wrote:

How about [META] for discussions about the list itself? :wink:

Would discussions about the [META] tag itself qualify as
[META][META] ?

I’m looking for the list that that discusses lists that don’t discuss
themselves.

James

–

http://www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
Ruby Code & Style - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com - Building Better Tools

27

On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 07:39:32AM +0900, Lloyd Z. wrote:

… and then we can have [ANSWER] for the responses, not to mention
other things like [SUGGESTION], [RANT], [LANGUAGE-WAR], etc. And since
[OT] is already in use, for the sake of parity, we should also have
[ON-TOPIC]. :slight_smile:

. . . or we could use [OT] for that, too, but it’s a different [OT]
than the [OT] used for off-topic stuff. Really it is.

–
Chad P. [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

unix virus: If you’re using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.

28

On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 09:33:14AM +0900, James B. wrote:

I expect that a general community consensus will determine what get
used. People make up subject tags as they see fit, and if they strike a
chord with others, they get picked up. Useless or confusing tags simply
go away.

I’ve seen [SOLUTION] used when people have been pursuing some general
problem (e.g., getting Ruby MySQL binary bindings working on Win32) and
finally reach a solution. So it has a history already.

True, that . . . it’s sort of a “critical mass consensus” thing that
tends to lead to stuff like public wiki policy and Usenet traditions
like the one regarding Godwin’s Law and the end of a discussion.

–
Chad P. [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

print substr(“Just another Perl hacker”, 0, -2);

29

On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 08:47:59AM +0900, Martin DeMello wrote:

Chad P. [email protected] wrote:

Uh-oh. What do we do if we’re talking about metaprogramming?

Use an eigentag, of course.

Of course. Silly me.

–
Chad P. [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

“Real ugliness is not harsh-looking syntax, but having to
build programs out of the wrong concepts.” - Paul Graham

30

Hal F. wrote:

James B. wrote:

I’m looking for the list that that discusses lists that don’t discuss
themselves.

alt.spanish.barber

But of course!

James

http://www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
Ruby Code & Style - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com - Building Better Tools

31

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 02:52:37 -0000, Chad P. [email protected]
wrote:

well? ;o)

… and then we can have [ANSWER] for the responses, not to mention
other things like [SUGGESTION], [RANT], [LANGUAGE-WAR], etc. And since
[OT] is already in use, for the sake of parity, we should also have
[ON-TOPIC]. :slight_smile:

. . or we could use [OT] for that, too, but it’s a different [OT]
than the [OT] used for off-topic stuff. Really it is.

[^OT] ?

Kinda works I guess. Maybe they should be switched though, since
on-topic
is hopefully the common case and so should be quicker to type…

32

James B. wrote:

I’m looking for the list that that discusses lists that don’t discuss
themselves.

alt.spanish.barber

Hal

33

From: “Ross B.” [email protected]

“recommendation” that new software announcements (or updates) have
. . or we could use [OT] for that, too, but it’s a different [OT]
than the [OT] used for off-topic stuff. Really it is.

[^OT] ?

Kinda works I guess. Maybe they should be switched though, since on-topic
is hopefully the common case and so should be quicker to type…

Excellent! What a savings! =D

Love it,

Bill

34

James Edward G. II wrote:

On Jan 3, 2006, at 4:23 PM, Warren B. wrote:

If we want to get really bold, the rule could also ask people

submitting solutions to start the subject with “[QUIZ][SOLUTION]” :o)

Yuck. :slight_smile:

[SOLUTION] implies [QUIZ], I think, so we can drop the repatition.

Well, no.

People have used SOLUTION for, well, solutions, for all sorts of
problems that they have asked of the list.

I’ve begun sorting certain topics into separate directories to reduce
the traffic in my main ruby-talk folder. Having all QUIZ related items
contain QUIZ in the subject makes it pretty clear, as opposed to
assuming that people will only post solutions to quizzes.

Thanks,

James

http://www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
Ruby Code & Style - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com - Building Better Tools

35

On Jan 6, 2006, at 8:33 PM, James B. wrote:

People have used SOLUTION for, well, solutions, for all sorts of
problems that they have asked of the list.

I’ve begun sorting certain topics into separate directories to
reduce the traffic in my main ruby-talk folder. Having all QUIZ
related items contain QUIZ in the subject makes it pretty clear, as
opposed to assuming that people will only post solutions to quizzes.

I’m not clear on what you are asking me for here. You want the
[QUIZ] rule and no [SOLUTION] rule? Do I have that right?

James Edward G. II

36

On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 05:43:00PM +0900, Ross B. wrote:

[ANN] in their subject line?
than the [OT] used for off-topic stuff. Really it is.

[^OT] ?

Kinda works I guess. Maybe they should be switched though, since on-topic
is hopefully the common case and so should be quicker to type…

. . . or [!OT].

–
Chad P. [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

“A script is what you give the actors. A program
is what you give the audience.” - Larry Wall

37

James Edward G. II wrote:

I’m not clear on what you are asking me for here. You want the [QUIZ]
rule and no [SOLUTION] rule? Do I have that right?

I’m saying that [SOLUTION] by itself does not imply [QUIZ]; all
quiz-related posts (initial quiz details, questions about the quiz in
particular or quizzes in general, solutions t quizzes, etc.) should have
QUIZ in the subject.

Adding SOLUTION to that subject line (i.e. [QUIZ SOLUTION]) would then
make it clearer for folks who do not want to inadvertently read a
proposed quiz solution, while not assuming that all solutions posted to
the list revolve around quizzes.

(In general, though, I’m not enamored of “rules”; it’s more a matter of
a general etiquette suggestion. [SOLUTION] is pretty general, has been
used in the past for various posts, and should not be conflated with any
particular sub-topic. )

Thanks,

James B.

–

http://www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
Ruby Code & Style - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com - Building Better Tools

38

On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 02:37:48PM +0900, James B. wrote:

Adding SOLUTION to that subject line (i.e. [QUIZ SOLUTION]) would then
make it clearer for folks who do not want to inadvertently read a
proposed quiz solution, while not assuming that all solutions posted to
the list revolve around quizzes.

Holy cow, we’re talking about namespaces.

–
Chad P. [ CCD CopyWrite | http://ccd.apotheon.org ]

unix virus: If you’re using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.

39

On Jan 6, 2006, at 11:37 PM, James B. wrote:

James Edward G. II wrote:

I’m not clear on what you are asking me for here. You want the
[QUIZ] rule and no [SOLUTION] rule? Do I have that right?

I’m saying that [SOLUTION] by itself does not imply [QUIZ]; all
quiz-related posts (initial quiz details, questions about the quiz
in particular or quizzes in general, solutions t quizzes, etc.)
should have QUIZ in the subject.

That’s a good point. You’re right.

Adding SOLUTION to that subject line (i.e. [QUIZ SOLUTION]) would
then make it clearer for folks who do not want to inadvertently
read a proposed quiz solution, while not assuming that all
solutions posted to the list revolve around quizzes.

If I do this though we now have two new rules: [QUIZ] and [QUIZ
SOLUTION]. I don’t want to get too draconian with Ruby Q. procedure.

I’m not too worried about people bumping into solutions accidentally
either, since the “no spoiler period” handles this quite well, in my
opinion.

I’ll add a suggestion to the quizzes for a [QUIZ] in the subject and
we can see if that changes anything…

Thanks to all for bringing this to my attention.

James Edward G. II

40

Chad P. wrote:

…

Holy cow, we’re talking about namespaces.

Yeah, well, I didn’t want to bring that up, but that’s in a nutshell.

(So I guess we can refer people to past threads on picking names for
third-party Ruby libraries, and why people should pause before claiming
a fairly generic or common name for things. Or something.)

James

–

http://www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
Ruby Code & Style - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com - Building Better Tools