From: Nathan on 3 Mar 2010 21:00 On Mar 3, 5:50 pm, nos...(a)see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote: > Nathan <ngrec...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > In my second post, I posted the differing declarations in the main > > function and stated that the others were the same in both. > > It wasn't the case here, but it isn't at all unusual for descriptions > like "the same" to cover up a problem. It can easily be that the poster > just didn't see the difference. That kind of thing happens all the time > - that your eyes just see what they think should be there instead of > what is actually there. My eyes aren't imune to that either (not by a > long shot). Those can be the easiest kinds of problems for someone else > to help with. Or it can be that what you thought was essentially the > same turned out to have a difference that you didn't appreciate. > > As noted, that wasn't he case here, but it happens often enough that any > time I see any description at all substituted for actual code, it sets > off an internal warning light. Yes, that definitely includes > descriptions like "the same". > > I'd much rather see both copies so that I can verify they are the same. > It might seem like showing one copy and saying that the other was "the > same" could save work, but it doesn't. It certainly doesn't save work if > that covers up the problem. But even if the description is accurate, > that still slows me down because of needing to consider the possibility > that it wasn't accurate. > > Just for future reference. > > -- > Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience; > email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment. > domain: summertriangle | -- Mark Twain Well, thanks for clearing that up. I'll take note of that and act accordingly. You've been a great help. -Nathan
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 Prev: how to get the output of call system in a variable Next: Is there a log framwork for fortran? |