oh, the temptation

[cellio]

I'm reviewing some documentation I wrote back when I first joined this company, to see if it's still accurate. I encountered the following statement (in a situation where A logically must be greater than B):

"[class] does no checking of these two values; if you set [A] to be less than [B], the results are undefined."

What I really want to write instead is: "if..., you will deserve what you get, and don't call us for support".

But that would be unprofessional. Shucks. :-)

Comments

[geekosaur]

...this is an ID-10T condition and is not supported...

[dagonell.livejournal.com]

When I was trouble-shooting for Plantrol, they had it down to a system. Users never got to talk to programmers. There was a Customer Support person between us. This meant that I would write up the solution in the file, send it to CS and they would write up a non-technical version to send to the customer. For 'non-technical', read 'diplomatic'. My favorite CS person to work with was Frank. I could write "PEBKAC" in the solution blank (Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair) and he'd not only write up a polite reply for the user but erase my smart-ass remark from the file and write techo-babble there! :

[cellio]

PEBKAC -- that's great! I must remember that.

If you've never heard it, go to mp3.com, search for "Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie" (I am not making this up), and listen to "Internet Help Desk". (I hope it's still there; I haven't verified.) It's hilarious! (I think it's also their best sketch.)

[ralphmelton.livejournal.com]

I have exploited the fact that someone would rewrite my words myself.

I don't think "if [you choose this combination of parameters], you're in for a heaping helping of hurting" ever made it into the documentation, despite my saying "I'll give you a dollar if you put it in."

[cellio]

I have exploited the fact that someone would rewrite my words myself.

And this is one of many things that made you fun to work with.

heaping helping of hurting

I can't remember for certain, but check the reference page for the relevant class in the final version that got packaged up for Q. (I forget, was this QueryWeights?)

[ralphmelton.livejournal.com]

It was DateCenturyThreshold.

The copy of the documentation that is most convenient for me to check merely says, "if you do this, any possible implementation will violate your expectations in some cases."

[cellio]

It was DateCenturyThreshold.

Remind me: what class was that in?

"if you do this, any possible implementation will violate your expectations in some cases."

That sounds like something I wrote. Pity about the heaping helping. Though it might be worth a grep on the doc set for "hurting", in case Deanna or I took this idea and applied it elsewhere.

[ralphmelton.livejournal.com]

DateCenturyThreshold was one of the environment options in NLPEnvironment.

I think the "... will violate your expectations" sounds like something I would have written, actually. However, I have no idea anymore.