Re: Why no SSCCEs?

"Chris Smith" <cdsmith@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.1da5bdd6ebb13140989b09@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Skip <a@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Not much you can do about it, as they don't search for previous posts.
Maybe
> > the worst thing is that people actually read that massive code and try
to
> > point out (all) their bugs. It would be better when just a link was
passed
> > about SSCCEs, which often will cause them to find their bug, fix their
code
> > and live happily ever after.
>
> Okay, I guess it's time to post my occasional plea asking people to not
> be a jerk. So here it is.
>
> That's the most convoluted piece of logic I've seen in some time.
> Asking people to provide more information about their problem is fine.
> Please, go ahead. It's your time that you would spend reading the post
> and writing a helpful answer, and if you don't want to spend that time,
> you have every right not to do so. It's certainly even decent of you to
> *nicely* suggest that someone should provide more information.

I'm not saying helping that way is bad, I'm just saying helping that way is
encouraging the behaviour. Everybody can decide for themselves whether they
help one way or the other.

So why did I make that (appearantly bold?) statement? Posting fixes of giant
parts of code normally doesn't help the OP understanding the true problem.
He might just "fixy fixy" and running into a similair problem in a few days.
When, however, he would boil the problem don't to a tiny piece of code, that
encourages him to inspect, debug and fix, by understanding what happens.

I hope I clearified my previous post a bit, and I hope you agree.


.