php-general Digest 30 Nov 2007 17:51:48 -0000 Issue 5156
Topics (messages 265287 through 265304):
Re: Join question
265287 by: Robert Cummings
265290 by: Jochem Maas
265293 by: Daniel Brown
265302 by: Daniel Brown
265303 by: Jochem Maas
Re: Dynamic Display of Images Stored in DB
265288 by: Børge Holen
Re: Rewind foreach loop
265289 by: Jochem Maas
265304 by: Jim Lucas
Re: Question about urlencode....
265291 by: Colin Guthrie
excluding parenthesis, space and dashes from phone number
265292 by: afan pasalic
265295 by: TG
265296 by: Jochem Maas
265297 by: Zoltán Németh
265300 by: afan pasalic
Re: Join question [solved]
265294 by: Daniel Brown
265301 by: Wolf
Re: PHP RFC # 0001 --- List Etiquette
265298 by: Philip Thompson
265299 by: Daniel Brown
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To post to the list, e-mail:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 13:49 +0800, Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
> On Friday 30 November 2007, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > > Or are you saying that one needs to make a lot of on-topic posts to
> > > build up credit in order to be able to make off-topic posts?
> >
> > No, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy.
>
> That would only be true if I had been making off-topic posts. But so far
> all you have concluded is that during the last 5 months I have "only made
> two on-topic useful posts".
I'm sorry, allow me to rephrase... in the past 5 months you've made 2
on-topic useful posts, with the rest either being on-topic for an
off-topic thread, or completely off-topic. I see no point in saying
more, I've made my point.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...........................................................
SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
...........................................................
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
> On Friday 30 November 2007, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
>> That's an amusing statement. I took a peek back in time and noticed
>> that in the past 5 months you've only made two on-topic useful posts to
>> the PHP General list-- and they were both for the same thread.
>
> If you have that much free time on your hands, should you not be looking
> for my off-topic posts so you can prove a point?
my guess it took less time to search for 'Crayon' in his mail archive than
it took you to write the sentence.
>
> Or are you saying that one needs to make a lot of on-topic posts to build
> up credit in order to be able to make off-topic posts?
aparently Rob wasn't saying this ... but I would, regardless the OP (tedd) has
earned his keep so to speak (and probably taken more shit than you in the
process
without resorting to troll-like behaviour) - this is proved by the fact that
people like Rob are helping him with something that is not strictly on topic.
besides which it's rather pointless telling someone to go elsewhere for help
when they already got the help and posted that they had solved the problem.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Nov 30, 2007 8:08 AM, Jochem Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Crayon Shin Chan wrote:
> > On Friday 30 November 2007, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >
> >> That's an amusing statement. I took a peek back in time and noticed
> >> that in the past 5 months you've only made two on-topic useful posts to
> >> the PHP General list-- and they were both for the same thread.
> >
> > If you have that much free time on your hands, should you not be looking
> > for my off-topic posts so you can prove a point?
>
> my guess it took less time to search for 'Crayon' in his mail archive than
> it took you to write the sentence.
>
> >
> > Or are you saying that one needs to make a lot of on-topic posts to build
> > up credit in order to be able to make off-topic posts?
>
> aparently Rob wasn't saying this ... but I would, regardless the OP (tedd) has
> earned his keep so to speak (and probably taken more shit than you in the
> process
> without resorting to troll-like behaviour) - this is proved by the fact that
> people like Rob are helping him with something that is not strictly on topic.
>
> besides which it's rather pointless telling someone to go elsewhere for help
> when they already got the help and posted that they had solved the problem.
>
>
> >
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
I was tempted to flame Tedd just because he's Tedd. ;-P
--
Daniel P. Brown
[office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
[mobile] (570-) 766-8107
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Nov 30, 2007 10:22 AM, Jochem Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Brown wrote:
> > I was tempted to flame Tedd just because he's Tedd. ;-P
>
> lol. but then the guy was programming Rocks(tm) way before I was
> born, that has to count for something :-)
Please keep all replies on the list, Jochem. ;-P
HA! It was too good not to share.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
[mobile] (570-) 766-8107
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007 10:22 AM, Jochem Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Daniel Brown wrote:
>>> I was tempted to flame Tedd just because he's Tedd. ;-P
>> lol. but then the guy was programming Rocks(tm) way before I was
>> born, that has to count for something :-)
>
>
> Please keep all replies on the list, Jochem. ;-P
crap - guess I hit reply instead of 'reply all' by mistake.
>
> HA! It was too good not to share.
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Friday 30 November 2007 00:39:39 Chris wrote:
> > Hell, I'm all ok with this method... but does (different) webhotells take
> > into account the amount used with cache/temp files.
> > If so, some check should be used, and if not. Cache it all!, and remove
> > the timelimit, some check for the change of image of course, but that all
> > depends if you acctually change images from time to time..
>
> If it's under your user account then there's no way for them to know
> which parts of your website are cache/temp folders and which aren't. So
> yes, caches & temp files/folders will be included in your disk quota.
I mean't system wide, like the php temp files, or /tmp.
--
---
Børge Holen
http://www.arivene.net
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jeffery Fernandez wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is it possible to rewind a foreach loop? eg:
>
>
> $numbers = array(0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10);
>
> foreach ($numbers as $index => $value)
> {
> if ($value == 5)
> {
> prev($numbers);
> }
> echo "Value: $value" . PHP_EOL;
> }
this might give you an[other] idea ... note it's
an infinite loop - watch out for those.
do {
foreach (array(0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) as $k => $v) {
if ($v == 5) continue 2;
echo $v, PHP_EOL;
}
} while (true);
>
> The above doesn't seem to work. In one of my scenarios, when I encounter and
> error in a foreach loop, I need the ability to rewind the array pointer by
> one. How can I achieve this?
>
> regards,
> Jeffery
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jeffery Fernandez wrote:
Hi all,
Is it possible to rewind a foreach loop? eg:
$numbers = array(0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10);
foreach ($numbers as $index => $value)
{
if ($value == 5)
{
prev($numbers);
}
echo "Value: $value" . PHP_EOL;
}
The above doesn't seem to work. In one of my scenarios, when I encounter and
error in a foreach loop, I need the ability to rewind the array pointer by
one. How can I achieve this?
regards,
Jeffery
No, you can't rewind the array. Foreach makes a copy of the array, and works
off that copy.
You might need to look into using do...while() instead
Something thing like this should work.
<?php
$row = current($your_array); Gives you the first element in $your_array
do {
...
work with your $row...
determine if their is an error
...
if ( $error ) {
# Watch out for infinite loop....
# maybe have a counter that increments each time it rewinds
$your_array
# and have it stop at 10 loops or something.
prev($your_array);
}
} while( $row = next($your_array) );
?>
This way, you are working on the only copy of $your_array
--
Jim Lucas
"Some men are born to greatness, some achieve greatness,
and some have greatness thrust upon them."
Twelfth Night, Act II, Scene V
by William Shakespeare
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
TG wrote:
> Unless your URL is more complicated than your example, you shouldn't need to
> use urlencode() at all. You'd need to use it in a case where your string
> may contain characters that aren't valid in URLs like spaces and such:
>
> $baseurl = "http://www.somesearchsite.com/search=";;
> $searchfor = "Grace O'Mally";
>
> $searchurl = $baseurl . urlencode($searchfor);
>
> Since you set your URL explicitly and it's not something entered by a user,
> you shouldn't need it.
>
> Try that and see if it fixes your other problem with double encoding.. or at
> least gives a better clue as to where it's coming from.
Unfortunately the URLs are of arbitrary complicatedness ;)
Simple CMS system. Can view a profile page of an "entry" and click
through to their website.
I have a leave page that tracks how many clickthroughs.
The URL the user entered could be e.g.
"http://www.site.com/?a=b&something=else";
So if I were to not URL encode the URL I would get an exit link of:
/leave.php?url=http://www.site.com/?a=b&something=else&entry_id=123
As you can see the entry id is now confuses with the original URL and
the fact that there are two ?'s in the query is not particularly nice
either.
So AFAICT I *have* to URL encode them.
I think the only thing I can do is detect the URL starting with
"http[s]%" in the leave.php file and keep decoding until it doesn't....
Seems really hick but what other option is there other than carefully
explaining to google bot to stop doubly encoding things thank you very
much....
Col
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
hi,
I store phone number in mysql as integer, e.g. (123) 456-7890 is stored
as 1234567890.
though, in search form they usually type in a phone number with
parenthesis/space/dashes. I have to extract numbers before I search
through mysql.
currently, I use eregi_replace() function, several times, to do the job:
eregi_replace(' ', '', $phone);
eregi_replace('(', '', $phone);
eregi_replace(')', '', $phone);
eregi_replace('-', '', $phone);
and it works fine.
but, is there any better way? more "fancy"? :)
thanks for any help.
-afan
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I suck at regex.. but found this a while ago. Supposedly it'll strip all
non-numeric characters, so I've used it for phone #'s and SSNs:
preg_replace ('/[^\d]+/s', '', $var)
-TG
----- Original Message -----
From: afan pasalic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: php-general <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:44:38 -0500
Subject: [PHP] excluding parenthesis, space and dashes from phone number
> hi,
> I store phone number in mysql as integer, e.g. (123) 456-7890 is stored
> as 1234567890.
> though, in search form they usually type in a phone number with
> parenthesis/space/dashes. I have to extract numbers before I search
> through mysql.
>
> currently, I use eregi_replace() function, several times, to do the job:
> eregi_replace(' ', '', $phone);
> eregi_replace('(', '', $phone);
> eregi_replace(')', '', $phone);
> eregi_replace('-', '', $phone);
> and it works fine.
>
> but, is there any better way? more "fancy"? :)
>
> thanks for any help.
>
> -afan
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
afan pasalic wrote:
> hi,
> I store phone number in mysql as integer, e.g. (123) 456-7890 is stored
> as 1234567890.
> though, in search form they usually type in a phone number with
> parenthesis/space/dashes. I have to extract numbers before I search
> through mysql.
>
> currently, I use eregi_replace() function, several times, to do the job:
> eregi_replace(' ', '', $phone);
> eregi_replace('(', '', $phone);
> eregi_replace(')', '', $phone);
> eregi_replace('-', '', $phone);
side note: if you are doing simple string relacement (as in the code above)
don't use regular expression functionality to do it, it a waste.
the above code will work the same if you replace 'eregi_replace' with
'str_replace'
> and it works fine.
>
> but, is there any better way? more "fancy"? :)
see TGs example. I recommend doing some study on regexps - knowing abit about
them and how to write a basic regexp is an invaluable tool.
>
> thanks for any help.
>
> -afan
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
2007. 11. 30, péntek keltezéssel 08.44-kor afan pasalic ezt írta:
> hi,
> I store phone number in mysql as integer, e.g. (123) 456-7890 is stored
> as 1234567890.
> though, in search form they usually type in a phone number with
> parenthesis/space/dashes. I have to extract numbers before I search
> through mysql.
>
> currently, I use eregi_replace() function, several times, to do the job:
> eregi_replace(' ', '', $phone);
> eregi_replace('(', '', $phone);
> eregi_replace(')', '', $phone);
> eregi_replace('-', '', $phone);
> and it works fine.
>
> but, is there any better way? more "fancy"? :)
str_replace would do the job.
http://hu2.php.net/str_replace
$phone = str_replace(array(' ','(',')','-'), '', $phone);
greets
Zoltán Németh
>
> thanks for any help.
>
> -afan
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Jochem Maas wrote:
> afan pasalic wrote:
>> hi,
>> I store phone number in mysql as integer, e.g. (123) 456-7890 is stored
>> as 1234567890.
>> though, in search form they usually type in a phone number with
>> parenthesis/space/dashes. I have to extract numbers before I search
>> through mysql.
>>
>> currently, I use eregi_replace() function, several times, to do the job:
>> eregi_replace(' ', '', $phone);
>> eregi_replace('(', '', $phone);
>> eregi_replace(')', '', $phone);
>> eregi_replace('-', '', $phone);
>
> side note: if you are doing simple string relacement (as in the code above)
> don't use regular expression functionality to do it, it a waste.
>
> the above code will work the same if you replace 'eregi_replace' with
> 'str_replace'
>
>> and it works fine.
>>
>> but, is there any better way? more "fancy"? :)
>
> see TGs example. I recommend doing some study on regexps - knowing abit about
> them and how to write a basic regexp is an invaluable tool.
Got it!
Thanks guys for your help.
-afan
>
>> thanks for any help.
>>
>> -afan
>>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Nov 29, 2007 11:17 PM, Robert Cummings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 14:00 +1100, Chris wrote:
> > > Out of curiosity, what SQL server (and version) are you using? I
> > > currently have MySQL 5.0.33 on my dev box and I had no problem with the
> > > query I gave you. Perhaps it's a version issue. There really shouldn't
> > > be a problem updating a table that also occurs in the select query since
> > > the select query should take place before the insert.
> >
> > He wasn't doing an insert/select, he was doing an update with two tables
> > joined together.
>
> He was doing an update/select and an insert/select. And the query I sent
> performed the insert/select without problem on my system. A similar
> query would have done the update/select. The fact that the select
> portion required a join doesn't change anything.
>
> > <copy>
> >
> > I thought that --
> >
> > UPDATE user1 u1, user2 u2
> > SET u1.login = u2.login, u1.password = u2.password
> > WHERE u1.username = u2.username
> >
> > -- would work, but it don't.
>
> Wrong query for either of the needs :)
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.
> --
> ...........................................................
> SwarmBuy.com - http://www.swarmbuy.com
>
> Leveraging the buying power of the masses!
> ...........................................................
>
> --
>
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
Rob,
The version difference is probably right on the nose. If I
remember correctly, you couldn't do that in the long-popular 3.23,
which *gasp!* is still used by some web hosts, believe it or not.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
[mobile] (570-) 766-8107
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
---- tedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi gang:
>
> I found why the JOIN didn't work for me in this instance, which was I
> needed to create a third table and JOIN what I needed in that table
> from the other two.
>
> My problem was that I was trying to alter one of the tables in the
> JOIN. While that might be possible it didn't appear so in my current
> problem.
>
> Thanks for letting me bounce ideas off you peoples.
>
> Cheers,
>
> tedd
Glad you found an answer tedd, I was going to start digging through my old
MySQL stuff and see what I could dig up, it's been a couple of years since
doing any DB work that needed any of that. Looks like the language and fun
have changed since then!
Gotta love improvements.
Wolf
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Nov 28, 2007 9:48 AM, Daniel Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good morning (/afternoon/evening) all;
>
> This is more or less an RFC-type email, hence the subject line. I
> would like to see your comments on this case, and maybe we can forge
> some sort of agreement or unofficial treaty or something.
>
> Oftentimes we see a user post a question to the list, with ongoing
> discussion back-and-forth on a troublesome issue, and when a solution
> is found, the subject line has an added [SOLVED] tag on it. While
> this makes sense in a forum style arena, where posts are binded
> statically in the same group, it defeats the purpose of mailing list
> archives such as Nabble and GMANE. A recent email from this morning
> illustrates the problem, as displayed presently at this page:
> http://www.nabble.com/PHP---General-f140.html
>
> The email with the subject "The PHP License" received commentary
> from both Jochem Maas and myself, and the OP (AmirBehzad Eslami)
> replied to the message, appending the [SOLVED] tag to the subject.
> This is not a serious issue in this particular matter, as it was a
> simple thank-you message out of politeness (which is greatly
> appreciated, Amir!). However, using just a single example should help
> to emphasize my point exponentially when you consider the frequency of
> occurrences we see following the [SOLVED]-appended route.
>
> On 12 September, 2007, Zbigniew Szalbot posted a message to the
> list about a segmentation fault in PHP 5.2.3. Over the next 24
> hours-plus, exactly sixty comments passed back-and-forth on the
> thread. When a solution was found, it was posted in a separate email
> with the [SOLVED] tag added to the subject line, and two additional
> comments added to that (entirely new) thread.
>
> Why is this such a critical issue? Because if we hope not to have
> to answer the same questions over and over again, instructing people
> to properly STFW, then we should at least be contributing to proper
> archival and documentation of problems we've successfully solved.
> Using the aforementioned example, we check Google for the same
> problem:
>
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=php+5.2.3+segmentation+fault+core+dumped
>
> Hooray! Someone else has had the exact same list of problems, and
> now I can simply go through all of the responses and it should
> (fingers crossed!) correct my issues as well.
>
> Message 58.... 59.... getting close!.... sixty-one.... WHAT?!? No
> solution? Back to Google.... only to find that each result is exactly
> the same discussion, never including the final three emails.
>
> So the summary of my proposal is as follows:
>
> 1.) An issue has been identified with the list whereby
> improper archival will likely lead to repeat questions and unnecessary
> traffic to the list.
> 2.) I propose that we discontinue the act of subject
> modification to indicate a change in status of the issue (SOLVED,
> ALSO, ANOTHER PROBLEM, etc.) unless a completely different problem is
> reached or question is asked. This will allow a step-by-step document
> (of sorts) to be created and made "searchable" on the web.
>
>
>
> Comments welcomed!
>
> --
> Daniel P. Brown
> [office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
> [mobile] (570-) 766-8107
I haven't checked this mail in several days. So... sorry if this thread is
"defunct". =D
As others have mentioned, the problem is hitting "New" email. Many (Dare I
say "all"? No, no. No I won't.) email clients are smart enough to thread
emails even if the subject has changed (and I know we have discussed that
issue as well). So, hitting "reply" and adding on [SOLVED] *shouldn't* do
anything... theoretically.... to break the thread and start a new one.
Here's the real kicker... how do we enforce your proposed suggestion(s)? As
active as this list is with new people coming regularly, the newer people
won't know these *rules*. Throwing it on the welcome message, IMO, would
only hit the people who read it.... which is probably about 5%. Oh, I have
an idea....... let's have a test! just to get on the list! You have to pass
the test to send/receive messages!
Ok, since it's taken me 30 minutes to write this email (I keep getting
distracted), I'm quitting... Any thoughts?
~Philip
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Nov 30, 2007 10:41 AM, Philip Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 28, 2007 9:48 AM, Daniel Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Good morning (/afternoon/evening) all;
> >
> > This is more or less an RFC-type email, hence the subject line. I
> > would like to see your comments on this case, and maybe we can forge
> > some sort of agreement or unofficial treaty or something.
> >
> > Oftentimes we see a user post a question to the list, with ongoing
> > discussion back-and-forth on a troublesome issue, and when a solution
> > is found, the subject line has an added [SOLVED] tag on it. While
> > this makes sense in a forum style arena, where posts are binded
> > statically in the same group, it defeats the purpose of mailing list
> > archives such as Nabble and GMANE. A recent email from this morning
> > illustrates the problem, as displayed presently at this page:
> > http://www.nabble.com/PHP---General-f140.html
> >
> > The email with the subject "The PHP License" received commentary
> > from both Jochem Maas and myself, and the OP (AmirBehzad Eslami)
> > replied to the message, appending the [SOLVED] tag to the subject.
> > This is not a serious issue in this particular matter, as it was a
> > simple thank-you message out of politeness (which is greatly
> > appreciated, Amir!). However, using just a single example should help
> > to emphasize my point exponentially when you consider the frequency of
> > occurrences we see following the [SOLVED]-appended route.
> >
> > On 12 September, 2007, Zbigniew Szalbot posted a message to the
> > list about a segmentation fault in PHP 5.2.3. Over the next 24
> > hours-plus, exactly sixty comments passed back-and-forth on the
> > thread. When a solution was found, it was posted in a separate email
> > with the [SOLVED] tag added to the subject line, and two additional
> > comments added to that (entirely new) thread.
> >
> > Why is this such a critical issue? Because if we hope not to have
> > to answer the same questions over and over again, instructing people
> > to properly STFW, then we should at least be contributing to proper
> > archival and documentation of problems we've successfully solved.
> > Using the aforementioned example, we check Google for the same
> > problem:
> >
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?q=php+5.2.3+segmentation+fault+core+dumped
> >
> > Hooray! Someone else has had the exact same list of problems, and
> > now I can simply go through all of the responses and it should
> > (fingers crossed!) correct my issues as well.
> >
> > Message 58.... 59.... getting close!.... sixty-one.... WHAT?!? No
> > solution? Back to Google.... only to find that each result is exactly
> > the same discussion, never including the final three emails.
> >
> > So the summary of my proposal is as follows:
> >
> > 1.) An issue has been identified with the list whereby
> > improper archival will likely lead to repeat questions and unnecessary
> > traffic to the list.
> > 2.) I propose that we discontinue the act of subject
> > modification to indicate a change in status of the issue (SOLVED,
> > ALSO, ANOTHER PROBLEM, etc.) unless a completely different problem is
> > reached or question is asked. This will allow a step-by-step document
> > (of sorts) to be created and made "searchable" on the web.
> >
> >
> >
> > Comments welcomed!
> >
> > --
> > Daniel P. Brown
> > [office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
> > [mobile] (570-) 766-8107
>
>
>
> I haven't checked this mail in several days. So... sorry if this thread is
> "defunct". =D
>
> As others have mentioned, the problem is hitting "New" email. Many (Dare I
> say "all"? No, no. No I won't.) email clients are smart enough to thread
> emails even if the subject has changed (and I know we have discussed that
> issue as well). So, hitting "reply" and adding on [SOLVED] *shouldn't* do
> anything... theoretically.... to break the thread and start a new one.
>
> Here's the real kicker... how do we enforce your proposed suggestion(s)? As
> active as this list is with new people coming regularly, the newer people
> won't know these *rules*. Throwing it on the welcome message, IMO, would
> only hit the people who read it.... which is probably about 5%. Oh, I have
> an idea....... let's have a test! just to get on the list! You have to pass
> the test to send/receive messages!
>
> Ok, since it's taken me 30 minutes to write this email (I keep getting
> distracted), I'm quitting... Any thoughts?
>
> ~Philip
>
My thoughts were for us, the actual contributing community, to
take the few seconds to do this ourselves. If someone pops in, asks a
question, and gets a response that solves it, then starts a new thread
with [SOLVED] in there, perhaps we could ask them to reply back to the
original thread, or even copy and paste it into the original thread
ourselves. I know it will take one of us a few seconds, which can
mean the difference between life and death (!!!!), but in the long
run, I really believe it will save a lot of grief.
Of course, it would only really need to be copied back to the
original thread if it was useful. If it was just a "thank you, you're
brilliant, King Dan Brown, the sexiest man ever to be hatched," then
I'll only copy it over for gloating purposes.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[office] (570-) 587-7080 Ext. 272
[mobile] (570-) 766-8107
If at first you don't succeed, stick to what you know best so that you
can make enough money to pay someone else to do it for you.
--- End Message ---
