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

[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.