Random wrote:
HTML-JSClub wrote: o....k..... i dont remember quoting anything. And
now I have a
question: in switch statements can i have it like: >case str1:
^ ^ or does it have to be a string or number?
Isn't it easier to try it and find out,
Trying things is often good, but so is looking at the documentation
(specifically the algorithms in ECMA 262).
rather than asking a dour bunch of passive-aggressive
scripters who are more likely to harp on the form of
your message than give you a meaningful response?
<snip>
'passive-aggressive' is an interesting label. It is impossible for the
recipient to object to it, or ignore, it without seeming to confirm the
diagnosis; useful when you have nothing but rhetoric to throw at an
argument.
The deal is; the posting conventions (including posting minimal trimmed
quotes of preceding messages, properly attributed, to provide a context
for responses) are for the benefit of the reader. In a one-to-many
communication medium like Usenet the convenience of the reader is
paramount as they significantly outnumber the author, and in most cases
the reader is the person who may be providing the answer, so it is
expedient to pander to their convenience.
Experienced participants in newsgroups don't like having to back-track
through threads to re-assemble the context of messages, or scroll
through yards of needlessly quoted material to see if there happens to
be a comment following it (and top-posting is the main cause of that).
But (not so) coincidentally it is the experienced participants who have
seen it all and know the answers to the questions asked. The upshot is
that the more experienced, and so likely more knowledgeable,
participants in the group are in a position to reduce the amount of
their time that is wasted by not answering the questions of people who
will not follow the Usenet posting conventions (or not assisting the
people who are answering questions but could benefit form a better
understanding), by not responding to their questions (or, in extremes,
killfileing them).
Obviously it is a bit unfair to dismiss people nothing more than what is
probably just ignorance of the conventions that they should be
following. So we provide a FAQ, which includes and outline of the
conventions, a reference to a detailed explanation, and a warning of the
consequences of ignoring them. One of the Usenet conventions is the
people wishing to participate in technical newsgroups that provide a FAQ
should read the FAQ prior to posting, but there is an obvious catch-22
in that for those initially ignorant of the conventions.
On the other hand people who need to be spoon-feed all of their
information, who cannot research anything and find out for themselves,
don't tend to be very interesting to talk to. So the normal practice is
to, more or less politely, initially refer people to the FAQ, suggesting
that they read it (and the resources that it refers to). And then to
make comments about the particular aspects of posting style in which
they are deficient. These represent the hints that a worthwhile
individual will pick up on. If they haven't picked up on them after a
couple of attempts then they are probably best dismissed form thought,
though some more charitable contributors may occasionally make the
effort of providing an additional detailed explanation of the
conventions (but doing that for everyone is not a realistic
expectation).
I notice that you got the idea quite quickly. One advisory comment and a
little observation and you are very close to producing perfectly formed
newsgroup postings, and that with the significant drawback for posting
from a poor example of a web interface instead of a newsreader. Just fix
that miss-attribution in your quote markers (the '> >', where it should
have just been '>'), and maybe use a clearer indicator of your edits,
and you will be 100%.
Richard.
