Page 1 of 2

1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:05 am UTC
by thunk
Image

Alt text: For even more info, see blarbl(2)(3) and birb(3ahhaha I'm kidding, just Google it like a normal person.

Sadly, no option for the Coptic papacy.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:56 am UTC
by Ae7flux
I just checked that "inaturalist.org" is real. I think they are going to come to hate Randall.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:01 am UTC
by teelo
If only doing my laundry was this simple. Sigh.

Code: Select all

blerp -t

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:16 am UTC
by ThemePark
...

derp?

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:25 am UTC
by Reecer6
thunk wrote:Sadly, no option for the Coptic papacy.


Seriously, I understand it's the standard to assume users are operating under Roman Catholicism, but to not even provide the option to set the ruling church to even Eastern Orthodox? I have numerous test samples I need to run under each and every Patriarch, and now I have to extend the library myself to do so.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:28 am UTC
by Afrael
And don't forget the Discordian Popes.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:07 am UTC
by orthogon
teelo wrote:If only doing my laundry was this simple. Sigh.

Code: Select all

blerp -t

You'd think so, but note that -t can be repeated:

-t leaves laundry soaking wet and slightly warm
-tt soaking wet and hot
-ttt wet and hot
-tttt wet and hot
-ttttt very damp and hot
-tttttt Reduce size by 10%. Damp and hot.
-ttttttt "oh sod it that'll have to do"

Users without sudo privilege must insert a 20p piece in the coin slot for each -t specified.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:17 am UTC
by madaco
ahaha its the page on true bugs.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:54 am UTC
by dms33
Reecer6 wrote:
thunk wrote:Sadly, no option for the Coptic papacy.


Seriously, I understand it's the standard to assume users are operating under Roman Catholicism, but to not even provide the option to set the ruling church to even Eastern Orthodox? I have numerous test samples I need to run under each and every Patriarch, and now I have to extend the library myself to do so.


It also needs to be extended to allow the options "none" (for Protestants) and "undefined" (for non christians for whom a definition of true pope is not applicable).

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:47 am UTC
by YellowYeti
dms33 wrote:
Reecer6 wrote:
thunk wrote:Sadly, no option for the Coptic papacy.


Seriously, I understand it's the standard to assume users are operating under Roman Catholicism, but to not even provide the option to set the ruling church to even Eastern Orthodox? I have numerous test samples I need to run under each and every Patriarch, and now I have to extend the library myself to do so.


It also needs to be extended to allow the options "none" (for Protestants) and "undefined" (for non christians for whom a definition of true pope is not applicable).


and 'antichrist' for hardline Paisleyist Protestants?

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:22 am UTC
by leifbk
"-d pipes output to debug.exe" - wtf? Real man page readers don't run .exe files.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:07 am UTC
by sfmans
YellowYeti wrote:
dms33 wrote:
Reecer6 wrote:
thunk wrote:Sadly, no option for the Coptic papacy.


Seriously, I understand it's the standard to assume users are operating under Roman Catholicism, but to not even provide the option to set the ruling church to even Eastern Orthodox? I have numerous test samples I need to run under each and every Patriarch, and now I have to extend the library myself to do so.


It also needs to be extended to allow the options "none" (for Protestants) and "undefined" (for non christians for whom a definition of true pope is not applicable).


and 'antichrist' for hardline Paisleyist Protestants?


And Page Popes for the Time thread crowd? This whole -p flag is just totally under-specced.

And as for what happens when any of -i -o, -I -o, -i -O, -I-O, -i -0, or -I -0 are specified ...

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:23 am UTC
by kodiac
sfmans wrote:And as for what happens when any of -i -o, -I -o, -i -O, -I-O, -i -0, or -I -0 are specified ...


Undocumented behaviour:
-e -i -e -i -o
causes the computer to sing, unless -q is also used.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:42 am UTC
by cellocgw
The first thing that comes to mind when I read (or hear) "blerp" is a certain comic strip. I'll submit a feature request to invoke that with the -Z option.

orthogon wrote:You'd think so, but note that -t can be repeated:

-t leaves laundry soaking wet and slightly warm
-tt soaking wet and hot
-ttt wet and hot
-tttt wet and hot
-ttttt very damp and hot
-tttttt Reduce size by 10%. Damp and hot.
-ttttttt "oh sod it that'll have to do"

Users without sudo privilege must insert a 20p piece in the coin slot for each -t specified.


Options 2t thru 4t are shamelessly seen as double enendres.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:58 am UTC
by Xenomortis
Man pages - they tell you everything that a program does, but not actually how to use it.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:27 pm UTC
by higgs-boson
YellowYeti wrote:
dms33 wrote:
Reecer6 wrote:
thunk wrote:Sadly, no option for the Coptic papacy.


Seriously, I understand it's the standard to assume users are operating under Roman Catholicism, but to not even provide the option to set the ruling church to even Eastern Orthodox? I have numerous test samples I need to run under each and every Patriarch, and now I have to extend the library myself to do so.


It also needs to be extended to allow the options "none" (for Protestants) and "undefined" (for non christians for whom a definition of true pope is not applicable).


and 'antichrist' for hardline Paisleyist Protestants?


... and page numbers, at least if running with -V 1190

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:44 pm UTC
by itaibn
Unlike blurp(1), blurp(3) is always in Quiet Mode. After all, it's in a library!

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:09 pm UTC
by richP
sfmans wrote:
And as for what happens when any of -i -o, -I -o, -i -O, -I-O, -i -0, or -I -0 are specified ...


People, people, come on. `info blerp` will tell you everything you need to know.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:11 pm UTC
by ThemePark
-. Prints the output in morse code.
.- Reads the input as morse code.
-A Starts an argument between the arguments.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:33 pm UTC
by kodiac
ThemePark wrote:-A Starts an argument between the arguments.

That's not an argument! They're just contradicting each other. :P

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:44 pm UTC
by rmsgrey
kodiac wrote:
ThemePark wrote:-A Starts an argument between the arguments.

That's not an argument! They're just contradicting each other. :P

An argument can be just contradiction.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:45 pm UTC
by ps.02
leifbk wrote:"-d pipes output to debug.exe" - wtf? Real man page readers don't run .exe files.

Yeah, that's the only bit of absurdity in an otherwise perfectly sensible list of options.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:21 pm UTC
by kodiac
rmsgrey wrote:
kodiac wrote:
ThemePark wrote:-A Starts an argument between the arguments.

That's not an argument! They're just contradicting each other. :P

An argument can be just contradiction.

In case you weren't aware, I was paraphrasing part of a sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_Clinic

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:29 pm UTC
by rmsgrey
kodiac wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
kodiac wrote:
ThemePark wrote:-A Starts an argument between the arguments.

That's not an argument! They're just contradicting each other. :P

An argument can be just contradiction.

In case you weren't aware, I was paraphrasing part of a sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_Clinic


And I was paraphrasing the response.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:39 pm UTC
by ThemePark
rmsgrey wrote:
kodiac wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
kodiac wrote:
ThemePark wrote:-A Starts an argument between the arguments.

That's not an argument! They're just contradicting each other. :P

An argument can be just contradiction.

In case you weren't aware, I was paraphrasing part of a sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_Clinic


And I was paraphrasing the response.

*DING*

I'm sorry, your five minutes are up.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:41 pm UTC
by airdrik
Each utility has its own arrangement of parameters, arguments, options, futures, derivatives, candidates and procedures; so if one doesn't have the behavior that you need then check the others. For instance, those desiring options for testing other papacies, please see the related utility blirb. Or for those desiring options for testing various conspiracies, myths, legends, etc. please see the related utility blarb. Lastly for those desiring assistance with claiming tax-free status for their organization blorp may be able to help.

You should make sure to understand the temperament of each one as treating it in a way other than it expects may result in undesirable behaviors. For instance invoking blerb with condescending tones will result in it daemonizing itself and hiding (encrypting) a random collection of files until a proper apology is made. However blirp expects and even requires you to condescend and belittle it in order for it to function properly. Blarb requires no less than 20 seconds of quite contemplation before attempting to fulfill any request. And blorp requires you to be wearing a specific brand of pants.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:42 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
So, I can't do blerp -y -m -c -a, but at least there's blerp -d -i -s -c -o...

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:47 pm UTC
by ps.02
kodiac wrote:In case you weren't aware, I was paraphrasing part of a sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus.

I don't always agree with Randall on these kinds of things, but in this case, I think his opinion is spot on. "Enough," indeed.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 3:22 pm UTC
by Keyman
ps.02 wrote:
kodiac wrote:In case you weren't aware, I was paraphrasing part of a sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus.

I don't always agree with Randall on these kinds of things, but in this case, I think his opinion is spot on. "Enough," indeed.

-a
#16 Alt text "...quotes exchanged, with no context..."

And now, for something completely different.
Image
The Larch

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:41 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
Stop that! It's getting too silly!

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:46 pm UTC
by operagost
orthogon wrote:
teelo wrote:If only doing my laundry was this simple. Sigh.

Code: Select all

blerp -t

You'd think so, but note that -t can be repeated:

-t leaves laundry soaking wet and slightly warm
-tt soaking wet and hot
-ttt wet and hot
-tttt wet and hot
-ttttt very damp and hot
-tttttt Reduce size by 10%. Damp and hot.
-ttttttt "oh sod it that'll have to do"

Users without sudo privilege must insert a 20p piece in the coin slot for each -t specified.

That goes along with the undocumented option -w:

-w leaves laundry wet, but still stained.
-ww still stained
-www yup, still stained
-W get water softener because detergents don't actually work anymore

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:55 pm UTC
by Mikeski
dms33 wrote:
Reecer6 wrote:
thunk wrote:Sadly, no option for the Coptic papacy.

Seriously, I understand it's the standard to assume users are operating under Roman Catholicism, but to not even provide the option to set the ruling church to even Eastern Orthodox? I have numerous test samples I need to run under each and every Patriarch, and now I have to extend the library myself to do so.

It also needs to be extended to allow the options "none" (for Protestants) and "undefined" (for non christians for whom a definition of true pope is not applicable).

Not being Christian is one thing. Not believing that a group of Christians has a leader is sort of weird. I'm not a Canadian, but I accept that they have a Prime Minister, even if not all of them accept his rule.

If the identity of the true pope is a don't-care for you, just leave the option off and use the system default. I think blerp attempts to geolocate the system's IP address at compile-time, and sets the default appropriately.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:41 pm UTC
by Flumble
Soupspoon wrote:So, I can't do blerp -y -m -c -a, but at least there's blerp -d -i -s -c -o...

Sure you can. -m is just not in the man page because it's a development switch.

-m specify an ampersand-seperated list of modules to load instead of the default POSIX libraries. These may be either shared objects or packages from pip. Requires python 2.7.11 in /home/steve/python-2.7.6/src/newtemp/bin. //FIXME -m should use the default python installation

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:07 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
Mikeski wrote:Not being Christian is one thing. Not believing that a group of Christians has a leader is sort of weird. I'm not a Canadian, but I accept that they have a Prime Minister, even if not all of them accept his rule.

I was about to agree with you, but what happens when (as apparently is the case with Popes? I didn't know that) different subsets of a group disagree on who their leader is.

For a non-Pope example: which is the rightful government of China, the Republic of China or the People's Republic of China? How about Taiwan, which is the rightful government of that? Both of them claim that they are the rightful government of both. As outsiders on the other side of the world, can we make a detached, uninvolved assessment of the question, or do we necessarily involve ourselves in their dispute by giving any answer at all?

If there's some sect of Christians who claim that the guy the Roman Catholics call the Pope really isn't the Pope at all and that someone else is the real Pope of the real (one holy apostolic and) catholic church, including within that the group we call Roman Catholics, then what can, say, an atheist conclude about the matter, without taking up some kind of religious position in the process?

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:28 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
Flumble wrote:-m specify an ampersand-seperated list of modules to load instead of the default POSIX libraries. These may be either shared objects or packages from pip. Requires python 2.7.11 in /home/steve/python-2.7.6/src/newtemp/bin. //FIXME -m should use the default python installation


Looks good, but I'm also having problems with the following:

Code: Select all

subprocess.call("blerp -r -e -s -p -e -c -t", shell=True)
while True :
  me = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
  if not (me ^ 1) :
    break
 

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:36 pm UTC
by ManaUser
What happens if you use both -i and -I? Does it ignore all the letters?

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:46 pm UTC
by airdrik
ManaUser wrote:What happens if you use both -i and -I? Does it ignore all the letters?

ýòü ĥąⱱĕ ţő ůşē ŋōň֊ăśċīĩ ũńįĉŏđė

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:19 pm UTC
by da Doctah
orthogon wrote:-t leaves laundry soaking wet and slightly warm
-tt soaking wet and hot
-ttt wet and hot
-tttt wet and hot
-ttttt very damp and hot
-tttttt Reduce size by 10%. Damp and hot.
-ttttttt "oh sod it that'll have to do"

Users without sudo privilege must insert a 20p piece in the coin slot for each -t specified.


Wait. You *nix types still have coin slots? Windows got rid of that back when we moved from version 3.30 to version 95.

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:17 pm UTC
by Bounty
kodiac wrote:Undocumented behaviour:
-e -i -e -i -o
causes the computer to sing, unless -q is also used.


I just tried this with the -q switch. Is that really the best ASCII Art Bacon the developers were able to create?

Re: 1692: "Man Page"

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:31 pm UTC
by rmsgrey
Pfhorrest wrote:
Mikeski wrote:Not being Christian is one thing. Not believing that a group of Christians has a leader is sort of weird. I'm not a Canadian, but I accept that they have a Prime Minister, even if not all of them accept his rule.

I was about to agree with you, but what happens when (as apparently is the case with Popes? I didn't know that) different subsets of a group disagree on who their leader is.

For a non-Pope example: which is the rightful government of China, the Republic of China or the People's Republic of China? How about Taiwan, which is the rightful government of that? Both of them claim that they are the rightful government of both. As outsiders on the other side of the world, can we make a detached, uninvolved assessment of the question, or do we necessarily involve ourselves in their dispute by giving any answer at all?

If there's some sect of Christians who claim that the guy the Roman Catholics call the Pope really isn't the Pope at all and that someone else is the real Pope of the real (one holy apostolic and) catholic church, including within that the group we call Roman Catholics, then what can, say, an atheist conclude about the matter, without taking up some kind of religious position in the process?


As a practical matter, the People's Republic of China governs mainland China; the Republic of China governs Taiwan. As a relatively uninformed outsider, I don't feel I should venture an opinion on whether either has legitimate claim to the other's territory or population.

Similarly, when it comes to multi-Pope, the practical situation is that different groups of Christians follow(ed) different Popes, and an atheist has no business choosing to support one over another unless circumstances force it upon them.