Shawn H. Corey wrote: > Randal L. Schwartz wrote: >> This is what makes me trustworthy here. If you want this kind of >> respect, do >> the same: if you've actually *tested* a solution, say so. If you haven't >> tested it, ask yourself if you want your trustworthiness tested >> instead. :) >> And if not, say, "I *think*..." > > True but I don't think one simple statement is enough. Back when I was > just starting someone told me how to talk to the press: you say one > thing, you say only one thing, and you say it over and over; then they > might get it right...but don't bet the farm on it. > > If you post untested code, clearly say so, both before and after it. > Repeat what you're saying, over and over.
Does this fall in-line with what I've heard from military commanders (over and over)?: - tell them what they are about to hear - tell them what they need to hear - tell them what they just heard > (And I'm not betting if anyone understand this. :) I believe I get it. This thread almost seems like a list charter being hammered out. _As a newbie_, I'd like to ask: Is it appropriate to reply with code that I know for fact works, but rely on the senior members to help catch possible missed edge-cases and optimization issues, and essentially turn my response into an implicit code review? What 'label' would I pre-declare the code with in this case, if any? I like to read the posts, take a break from what I was doing at the time to put some code together for practise, and then literally copy/paste the working code verbatim from the SSH terminal directly into a new email. Steve
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
