in reply to Bad reasoning?

To me, the difference is that I hold you to somewhat higher standards than other posters on this site.

Also note that in my Google bubble, your post is the third fourth result for "Stirling Numbers".

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Bad reasoning?
by huck (Prior) on Jan 20, 2017 at 03:39 UTC

    Also note that in my Google bubble, your post is the third fourth result for "Stirling Numbers".

    It isnt in the top five pages for me, of course i know we live in different bubbles, just FYI

[reply]
Re^2: Bad reasoning?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jan 20, 2017 at 00:17 UTC
    I hold you to somewhat higher standards...

    So, you hold me to higher standards, but don't credit me with enough respect to believe me when I say that I cannot see any better title for my post.

    My post has as much to do with Stirling Numbers as a question about regex has to do with the for loop that happens to be a part of the example code.

    In other words; the algorithm description could have been for any algorithm that happened to include the 1 element of that description that I was having trouble with, and sought an alternate opinion on.

    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion