[Zope] Re: checking what you post

[Pavlos Christoforou]

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