The reason i wanted to see if there was more than one copy in the lib stack was because he said it didnt work sometimes, but then when he tried the shorter examples those times it did work. Yes maybe i gave him too much credit in assuming he was loading the newest version into the lib stack at all. But it seemed more likely to me that there were now two versions and they were in different places.
You should go back to the "beginning", his problems with Switch( Switch.pm Failure). It was some of the strangest code ive seen, with a strange subroutine wrapped around the switch call, and returns sprinkled all over. It was the strangeness that intrigued me, and when i figured it out (Re^4: Switch.pm Failure ( CGI::Switch? )) all the artifacts made sense, why the brackets after Switch, why the sub wrapper, and why the returns. SO i have been aware of what kind of code we are talking about since the beginning. I am also aware of his other faults you also have mentioned, which is one reason i have not participated with him of late. But then i thought that maybe he thought he was updating the code in the tree, but it was in the wrong place, so the old code being higher in the lib stack was getting loaded even though he had updated the new code in a lower dir. And when he hand tested the simpler test code the lib stack was different. It was an idea it seems that poj also had. So i asked him to add the full lib search to see if there were two copies of manageusers in the stack.
after all this time he isnt going to change, he may whine that people are being mean to him and he knows what he is doing, but nothing changes.
In reply to Re^22: global var
by huck
in thread global var
by tultalk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |