On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Tom Neff wrote:
"Here, this ought to work - untested, try at your own risk" followed by some DTML, it would have been a little better if they took 60 seconds and threw it into a dummy method to make sure before posting, but I appreciate that not everyone has the time and it's better to at least get something to try. But if you can test first, I still hope you will. (I did, even on that silly little Content-Type: tip, even though I've used the technique several times before, because I didn't want to suffer the indignity of posters pointing out "Uh, you forgot the ______".)
Agreed. But in many cases even for simple replies, one has to recreate a lot of objects to actually try out anything. For instance, if someone asks a question about a complicated acquisition path, I will personally try it out before I answer as giving the wrong answer can cause confusion, but if someone is anaware that a DateTime object supports a lot of useful methods and his/she is trying to figure a complicate DTML way to get the day of the year, then a simple pointer to the source code where all the methods are listed and an example of the sort: (untested) <dtml-var "whateverdatetimeobject.get<whatever>()"> should be enough, even though I will go the extra length and give the correct (tested) method, it is IMO unneccessary.
But what I have no patience for is outright MIS-information, posted as if it were reliable fact, when a moment's checking would have disproved it.
If it is a moment checking then I would agree. Otherwise taging something as untested is a reasonable compromise. Pavlos