Delete an Array Entry?

Dave dave at looktowindward.com
Mon Mar 5 11:57:58 EST 2007


Hi Richard,

On 5 Mar 2007, at 16:22, Richard Gaskin wrote:

> Dave wrote:
>
>>> > Well he should have known better then!
>>>
>>> First, Jeanne is a woman.
>> Just a typing error, didn't meant to imply otherwise.
>
> No problem. Errors happen.

Yes and as long as they are addressed in a timely manner there is  
little harm in them, it's when something goes unattended for a long  
time that the real harm begins to set in.

>>> Second, that a mistake is made in any product's documentation  
>>> does not
>>> necessarily mean the author doesn't understand the concepts  
>>> involved,
>>> nor does finding such a mistake mean the author is fair game for   
>>> insults.
>> There were no insults made and are you 100% sure that Jeanne  
>> *did*  write that particular piece of  documentation?
>
> The latter is a good question, considering the number of people who  
> have contributed to the documentation.  But given the age of that  
> token and who was doing what when, it seems likely that entry was  
> written by Jeanne.
>
> But regardless who wrote it, "should have known better" implies  
> incompetence.

I disagree. I don't think that it implies incompetence at all. To me,  
"should have known better" means just that, and, once addressed, it  
shows that you do know better. However, whether or not Jeanne wrote  
it or not and whether she should have known better or not and whether  
she is incompetent or not is beside the point (not that I think she  
is). She did not build RunRev and she does not sell the product and  
so is not responsible for it, so any remark made about her has no  
real bearing as far as this and other problems are concerned, which  
is why I thought is funny that her name was brought up.

>>> Fortunately with software, unlike cars and space shuttles, we get a
>>> second chance.  Commercial software is almost always delivered in a
>>> series of versions, and each new version offers an opportunity to
>>> address errors and omissions found in the last one.
>> This hasn't been the case in RunRev, especially in the IDE and   
>> documentation. I have reported loads of things and none of them  
>> have  been changed or updated in over 3 years. I've now reported  
>> this one.  Anyone care to to bet me some money that it will get  
>> fixed any time  soon?
>
> Hard to say.  No release will have 100% of errors and omissions  
> corrected, and of the hundred or so addressed in the latest release  
> this one wasn't among them.  It was, however, confirmed this  
> morning by RunRev staff, so at least they're aware of it.
>
> As far as bugs go, this one is pretty minor. As you noted, it  
> hasn't even caused any problem in your own work, and since the  
> syntax as shown in the docs is fully functional and nearly  
> identical to what one would expect for using numeric arrays, it's  
> not likely to be any bigger problem for others than it has been  
> thus far.

It is very minor, I agree, but the solution would take very little  
effort to implement. Less time than has been spent talking about it  
on this list in fact. There are a lot of things like this in RunRev  
that just don't seem to get fixed even though they would take so  
little time to actually put right.
>
>> One thing on this list is that when you do mention something like   
>> this, a few people immediately jump to the defensive as if the  
>> person  doing the mentioning is attacking their baby or kid sister  
>> and make  all kinds of excuses or come up with all kinds of  
>> reasons why what  the mentioner has mentioned is somehow incorrect  
>> or point to other  places in the documentation where what has been  
>> mentioned incorrectly  is mentioned there correctly as if this  
>> somehow justifies or makes  lessens the original problem.
>
> Those are two separate issues, and attempting to merge them may  
> mislead  newcomers here.

Not sure what you mean? I wasn't referring to you in that paragraph,  
I don't think you have ever indulged in this kind of behavour.

> The reader here will find hundreds of posts relating to problem- 
> solving, some of them relating to working around bugs. I've  
> contributed both bug-verification requests, and suggestions for  
> working around bugs to help folks find what they need to keep  
> moving their work forward.

Yes, you have contributed a lot, and I personally thank you for  
helping me in the past.

> In this case I acknowledged that this is a problem, submitted the  
> bug report for you, and thanked you for identifying it.  Hard to be  
> clearer or more supportive than that.

Thanks again.

> As a completely separate matter I noted that implying incompetence  
> with the author of the documentation is unnecessary and  
> counterproductive.

I wasn't referring to you in that remark, and, I didn't imply  
incompetence, that was the last thing in my mind when I wrote it. in  
my opinion mentioning the author by name in the first place was the  
mistake. What was the need for it? Once mentioned by name, anything  
said would be very likely to be taken personally even if it wasn't  
meant that way.

> The severity of a bug is inherent in the bug itself:  it either  
> causes problems or it doesn't.  When it does, the first thing to do  
> is log the bug, and once that's done the most productive course is  
> it to find an alternate solution while the fix is pending.

I agree.

> This bug is considered minor not by anything I wrote, but by your  
> own description of how it's affected your work:
>
>> I do not have a specific problem with arrays in RunRev.
>
> Glad to hear it.
>
> Peace and productivity -

Live Long and Prosper!

All the Best
Dave




More information about the use-livecode mailing list