>>On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Randal L. Schwartz <mer...@stonehenge.com > wrote:
> > >I don't think that's strong enough to clearly state "I have not tested > this, > >but I hope this works". I would read that as "of all the possible ways > >that you can do this, I've done it this way, and found this to be the > best." This is what I prefaced my reply with : "This is how I would do it." Implying that if I was in the questers shoes, I would solve the problem with the code I supplied. > >(And I haven't read the rest of the thread, but I'm guessing that it > actually > >didn't work.) The code DID in fact work. It produced the results correctly in a hash table. The requester did not have the know-how to extract the hash table into a file. I then changed the code to produced the desired results correctly into a file. The requester then asked if it is possible to produce the same results in the same manner but where uid's are a character string instead of digit's Again I changed the code, and gave him the solution that will write uid's to a file whether they are characters or digits. > > >I hope you can see the difference in meanings. If you can't, > >step back a bit, and err on the side of always saying "I think this might > >work...". :) Before posting I tested the code and it worked. > > > >What people want to know if you post an answer is if they're using > >a proven solution or not. > > >If you imply that you have a proven solution, you are lying to them. I > ask > >that you don't lie in that way. But nobody would fault you for saying > >"this is not a proven solution... I'm guessing that the following might > >work". I did NOT lie, nor did I mislead the list in anyway by supplying code that did not work. Each line of code I posted was tested, produced the desired results, albeit in a format the requester could not use at first. But the bottom line is the code worked. As I stated earlier there was syntactical errors but I clearly stated that I am new to this, and I invited scrutiny of my code. > > > >That's really *ALL* we ask. Be truthful here. You can be at any > expertise, > >and provide an answer (right or wrong), but don't *lie* about your level > of > >confirmation for the result. > > Again, I tested the code, it worked. I did not lie. Because this thread, and others, are a direct results of my posting code I cannot help but take the replies personally. The criticism on my syntactical mistakes in my code I took and thanked the person who helped me. But with all due respect I'm really disappointed in the fact that people, by implication and without gathering all the facts, call my a liar. Ian Another disclosure: English is not my first language so pardon any grammar and spelling mistakes. I try :-).
