Here's a puzzle for you

[suityou01]

The point is not that you were using the wrong symbol to denote one value being less than another, the point is that you dismissed what someone else said by stating that "in your argument 1 < 2 and 0 < 1" which given both statements are true is hardly a valid critique is it?



It doesn't, so it's not going to work very well as a test, as it will always return true. Perhaps you didn't mean "make my test 1 < 2" but that is what you said.

Do you see how what you say and what you mean are sufficiently different that people don't understand what you mean?

OK. Let's go through this slowly.

Let's say I have an integer called "SCAN_COUNT" on my record. We scan the script out. SCAN_COUNT = 1.

The candidate sits the exam and it is scanned back in. SCAN_COUNT now = 2.

If the result wasn't scanned back in the 1 < than the expected 2 so we have a missing script. OK so far?

Right. Good.

So in the original solution, we only scan on the way back in. So let's say when the entry is created SCAN_COUNT = 0.

Then on the way back in it is incremented to 1.

Any rows with a value of 0 would be unscanned scripts.

So in scenario 1 I have to test

WHERE SCAN_COUNT < 2

In the second scenario I have to test

WHERE SCAN_COUNT < 1

Both achieve the same thing. One of course requires let work, so is more efficient and hence cheaper. The second one requires some re-work of the system which makes it a non starter right off the bat.

Got it?

[doodab]

OK. Let's go through this slowly.

Let's say I have an integer called "SCAN_COUNT" on my record. We scan the script out. SCAN_COUNT = 1.

The candidate sits the exam and it is scanned back in. SCAN_COUNT now = 2.

If the result wasn't scanned back in the 1 < than the expected 2 so we have a missing script. OK so far?

Right. Good.

So in the original solution, we only scan on the way back in. So let's say when the entry is created SCAN_COUNT = 0.

Then on the way back in it is incremented to 1.

Any rows with a value of 0 would be unscanned scripts.

So in scenario 1 I have to test

WHERE SCAN_COUNT < 2

In the second scenario I have to test

WHERE SCAN_COUNT < 1

Both achieve the same thing. One of course requires let work, so is more efficient and hence cheaper. The second one requires some re-work of the system which makes it a non starter right off the bat.

Got it?

You really are incredibly patronising.

I never didn't "get it", and I never said that scanning only once wasn't a good idea. I'm simply pointing out that what you actually said in the first instance was so different than what you actually meant that it made no sense. Perhaps try taking that on board as constructive criticism rather than being a twat about it.

[suityou01]

You really are incredibly patronising.

I never didn't "get it", and I never said that scanning only once wasn't a good idea. I'm simply pointing out that what you actually said in the first instance was so different than what you actually meant that it made no sense. Perhaps try taking that on board as constructive criticism rather than being a twat about it.

I'm responding in kind to your patronising comments. I have explained myself perfectly clearly.

[doodab]

I'm responding in kind to your patronising comments. I have explained myself perfectly clearly.

Yes, now you have, but none of that was communicated in your original posts. Are you actually like this at work?

[mudskipper]

Yes, now you have, but none of that was communicated in your original posts. Are you actually like this at work?

No, he's awesome.

[vetran]

Yes, now you have, but none of that was communicated in your original posts. Are you actually like this at work?

from some of his posts about being moved on I suspect he is.

Suity you need to be collaborative.

[suityou01]

from some of his posts about being moved on I suspect he is.

Suity you need to be collaborative.

I have never posted about being moved on. You must be confusing me with someone else.

@Doodab : You said my use of mathematical symbols was wrong and did not match my argument. Then you said I should take constructive criticism. I am ready to do that. Please could you explcitly state where I messed up, with examples.

On being collaborative. I would say I am as I have on the whole worked in team environments. I'm of course patronising on here, after alll that's what we do, day in and day out? Why make an issue of it now?

I started this thread in all seriousness so you could see what I have to put up with at work. It was a big shock to me that so many on here were bamboozled. Perhaps it was drip drip drip, perhaps not.

As always the last laugh is on me, as if I really was that bright I would be a success.

[doodab]

@Doodab : You said my use of mathematical symbols was wrong

Er, no I didn't. I said that

the way you are bandying mathematical symbols about makes no sense

what you say and what you mean are sufficiently different that people don't understand what you mean

and

what you actually said in the first instance was so different than what you actually meant that it made no sense

Please could you explcitly state where I messed up

I thought I already had....

you dismissed what someone else said by stating that "in your argument 1 < 2 and 0 < 1" which given both statements are true is hardly a valid critique is it?

Do you see how little resemblance this bears to the point you were actually trying to make?

[EternalOptimist]

maybe you need to be on the receiving end of somebody elses problem, where they have severe communication and logical cognitive problems. Then you would realise the pain you have inflicted upon the poor CUK populace. feel that paaaiin

[RetSet]

I can't be arsed reading 16 of pages posts.

What was the answer?