in reply to Re^2: Quantum Weirdness and the Increment Operator
in thread Quantum Weirdness and the Increment Operator

And so we are expected to tolerate everybody who starts programming in 2004 not referring to anything written before 2004? We are supposed to accept that manuals don't exist? We are supposed to accept that new suers will ask questions without even considering that they are not the first to come across some thing or another?

Well, like it or not, there is a body of knowledge out there.

When the manual says that the behaviour of something is udefined, then it also implies " and it may come back to bite you if you try to use it".

Enlightenment is welcomed, but the answer to the question is clear, it is documented. It is written in plain English for all to see.

jdtoronto

  • Comment on Re^3: Quantum Weirdness and the Increment Operator

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Quantum Weirdness and the Increment Operator
by ihb (Deacon) on Jul 24, 2004 at 00:06 UTC

    Right, my point was that one shouldn't read documentation. sigh

    I could try to explain my point again more clearly, but I don't know how.

    Enlightenment is welcomed, but the answer to the question is clear, it is documented. It is written in plain English for all to see.

    And I wrote my argumentation in plain English for you to see, but you still didn't get it. And that's the problem, isn't it? What's clear for you may not be clear to someone else.

    If you take the time to read my post again, please read it in the context of Abigail-II's reply. Argumentation is always in a context.

    ihb

[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Meditations