Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- From: docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 5 Aug 2005 20:39:52 -0400
In article <a767b$42f3eb60$45491c57$14973@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
LX-i <lxi0007@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In article <HWJIe.158898$HI.67263@edtnps84>,
>> Oliver Wong <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>><docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dcovt5$arh$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>That is because you left the FIFO answer-queue filled with my question,
>>>>having provided no answer at all.
>>>For most of the question/answer sessions I've participated it, I believe
>>>they tend to work better as LIFO stacks; e.g.:
>>>Person A: How do I set the wallpaper on my desktop?
>>>Person B: Are you using Windows?
>> Ummmm... with all due respect, Mr Wong, you speak of 'question/answer
>> sessions' and then post an example of a question/question session... and
>> aswering a question with a question is, of course, no answer at all.
>So, you believe that Mr. Wong's full example (of which the first part is
>shown above, but I've reposted below) does not represent reasoned discourse?
I believe that it indicates answering a question with a question, hence my
The reasons I give for attempting to avoid such a construct have been
given again and again... do you need me to repost the URLs?
- Prev by Date: Re: Reviving REMARKS
- Next by Date: Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- Previous by thread: Re: "Shared" procedure division code
- Next by thread: Re: "Shared" procedure division code