Hi Uri,
Uri Guttman wrote:
"RW" == Raymond Wan <r....@aist.go.jp> writes:
RW> And what if A tries B's code, fails and asks again and B continues
RW> replying? Ok, A didn't get the "best answer" immediately; but
RW> isn't it a bad idea to stop such discussion? And sure, a few
RW> mails later, B gives up and someone else steps in. Is that a bad
RW> thing? C can also do some "lurking" form time-to-time, right?
RW> (NB: I have little sympathy for people who ask a question and say
RW> "I have my homework due tomorrow and need the best answer now."
RW> :-) )
all subjective. this example started when someone posted poor code for a
solution and he did ask for review of it. it would have been better if
he had stated this was his newbie attempt and he was just looking for
review of it, and not offering it to the OP as an answer.
Well, if we're going to have a "battle of the definition of 'subjective'" :-),
then likewise, what you said here when you said "it would have been
better..." -- is just as subjective. (One that others might share with you, but
by no means everyone... Hence, it's subjective.)
While Ian did not seek a review of his code, admitting that the solution was not
from an expert seems [to me :-) ] to satisfy the "not offering it as an answer"
requirement. Surely, if we don't have to tag an "In my opinion," to all of
our subjective postings, then we could relax a bit and interpret the two
statements of being near equal?
Ironically, if Ian wasn't up-front and admitted he wasn't an expert, you
probably wouldn't have taken an issue with it and just accepted him as being
incorrect. So, "honesty doesn't pay"? ;-)
Ray
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: beginners-unsubscr...@perl.org
For additional commands, e-mail: beginners-h...@perl.org
http://learn.perl.org/
