|
|
Posted by Steve on 10/20/06 17:01
".:[ ikciu ]:." <no@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ehath8$fu4$1@news.dialog.net.pl...
| Hmm Steve <no.one@example.com> wrote:
| > however you, of all people, SHOULD be supplying code because no one
| > here can understand your english. code is like a picture, almost
| > speaking for itself. that's why i asked you to supply some, so i
| > could fully understand how you planned to implement your
| > solution...because with JUST a description - your description - your
| > solution won't work (as you originally stated it and only *recently*
| > modified to look like the two other examples given which DO work).
|
| omg man if you think i need your solution to make my own, you are wrong,
| next time i will post almost full solution like you did
again, i did not say that. what i have said is that you stated, restated,
and restated one solution (that autoincrementing an int id field solves the
problem). after explaining why it was not a complete answer and was prone to
causing other problems (that were addressed in solutions i gave and that
belkin gave), you then changed 'your' solution and it's explanation is such
a suspect manner - almost mirroring our two solutions - that it is hard to
assume anything else. i have only implied the assumption. if your proof to
the contrary is to in fact post code that explains your english objectively
next time, so be it. at least then, you'll not have such a convenient memory
lapse as to what your solutions evolve into.
but you know this...otherwise, why are you focusing on THIS rather than
backing up your opinion that it is better to only describe solutions in
english and, that providing coded examples is 'pfff...wrong'. that WAS the
topic of your last post, no? i can only further assume you have no basis for
that opinion other than it is your preference...that hardly indicates the
'rightness' or 'wrongness' in my doing so.
does your programming suffer the same lack of logical reasoning?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|