Re^2: Bug in XML::Parser (maxims)

Perlmonks: Salutations! All points that you have made about me being extremely shabby etc. are valid. Appreciate the answers as well. Many thanks for the same. I should have done the basic check of XML for validity. Work pressure dominated - shouldn't have, but it did. I did not mean to be pompous when I used that subject line in the mail, nor was it an attempt to show-off that I found a bug. It was just my reaction to being vexed. Anyway, will certainly be careful next time and yes, will ensure that any questions that I post will not be in any way presumptuous. Cheers, Manu

Comment on Re^2: Bug in XML::Parser (maxims)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Bug in XML::Parser (maxims) by davido (Cardinal) on Oct 23, 2013 at 04:13 UTC
Well I hope you found the humor in those Maxims, because (I believe) they're intended to be humorous, and it was certainly my intent to enjoy them for that reason, while at the same time acknowledging the sound advice that they provide. ;) Dave	[reply]
Re^4: Bug in XML::Parser (maxims) by manunamu (Initiate) on Oct 23, 2013 at 05:20 UTC
Humorous? Yes! Chastised? Absolutely! Although, having seen all other posts from perlmonks where others had fallen prey to my kind of shabbiness, I did expect to be humorously chastised.	[reply]
Re^3: Bug in XML::Parser (maxims) by marinersk (Priest) on Oct 23, 2013 at 12:48 UTC
I think "shabby" might be a bit overly critical; thus, more so for "extremely shabby". As if we haven't all taken a drink from the "Oops" jar from time to time. `:-)` That said, you see the light on the error, which is what you came here for, and perhaps will take away a small bit of wisdom to not let work pressure interfere with basic diagnostic process -- another sin we have all surely committed from time to time. I know I have.	[reply] [d/l]