On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:26 PM, John Machin wrote:
On Mar 3, 3:27 am, Philip Semanchuk <phi...@semanchuk.com> wrote:
He claims to have done what I asked him to do in the first place --
break the problem into steps and verify the database steps. He says
they're working OK. I chose to take him at his word.
Rule number 1: Don't believe anything an OP says that is not
corroborated by output that looks like it was produced using the repr
() function (2.x) or ascii() function (3.x)
Saying "I don't believe you" has never worked well for me as a
conversation opener. Sometimes taking someone at his word is another
name for giving him enough rope to...make a mistake that he'll remember.
And for many people, trust breeds trust. I trust him, maybe he'll
trust me when I say (for the second time), "You need to break this
problem down into discrete, debuggable units."
I (mostly) agree with your rule. But as I said, there's more than one
way to solve this problem. Or perhaps I should say that there's more
than one way to lead the OP to a solution to this problem. We teach
differently, you and I. I believe there's room in the world for *both*
styles -- perhaps even a third or fourth! =)
Cheers
Philip
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
