Re^3: Count in intervals -- PM policy

Discipulus' answer seems pretty fair to me.

OP posted no code; gave no evidence that the SOPW showed any effort on the author's part; nor even followed the instructions in either PMD (to which the question was originally posted) or SOPW.

Providing a complete answer to such a question may display the responder's skills... but it does not comport with the Monastery's mission: that we'll help people learn, but not do a job for them.

Questions containing the words "doesn't work" (or their moral equivalent) will usually get a downvote from me unless accompanied by:

code
verbatim error and/or warning messages
a coherent explanation of what "doesn't work actually means.

Comment on Re^3: Count in intervals -- PM policy Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Count in intervals -- PM policy by QM (Parson) on Oct 01, 2014 at 14:59 UTC
I agree with your sentiments about the nature of the OP. However, suggesting Iterator to someone who's struggling with while and grep is, to my mind, like saying "Problems? Try a fork instead." Now there is one more problem. Also note that rkk has 10 writeups on the monastery. Judging by the OP and 10 writeups, I'd venture that Iterator might as well be Klingon, for all the good it does for the OP. Yes, providing a one-shot complete answer to posts such as rkk's probably isn't the best way to bring people like rkk up to speed here. Neither is providing "help" that isn't. -QM -- Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of	[reply]
Re^5: Count in intervals -- PM policy by Anonymous Monk on Oct 01, 2014 at 15:05 UTC
Good help is hard to come by, especially when improper considerations are provided. Also, GIGO.	[reply]
Re^6: Count in intervals -- PM policy by ww (Archbishop) on Oct 01, 2014 at 16:54 UTC
Perhaps you would like to explain the relevance of a link to the OP that's labeled "improper considerations" ...or is this mere spew? Please say what you mean. I know, I know. Don't feed the trolls... but I do really wonder about the link (and only a little less so, about the other two clauses. Of course, we'll never know if the same Anonymonk made the subject noder or any particular reply.	[reply] [d/l]