I am not asking you to just "rig" the thing to work, I am asking for someone to fix my view of the operator if it is not correct, this time you finally started to hit on what I wanted, though you did not answer it fully.

What I want to know is not how should I do it, but why the wrong way doesn't work, because, like you said, I have the correct view of this operator, so I simply want to know now why it did not work in that specific situation. Since it lets you stray from the hierarchy it should have compiled, even if that was not a good way to do it. I mean, I would think that it should have compiled no matter what, even if it is a lazy or stupid way to do it, or whatever, I would have thought that it should compile, because of the fact that it does not check that at compile time. So my question, put as simply, bluntly, and easily as could be stated, is basicaly "Why did it catch that at compile time?"

If I know the answer to that question then it will help me because it will give me more insight into how these things work. So there it is: my question restated in the simplest terms I can put it in.

-Loduwijk

Hanns wrote:

Egad, man, perhaps if you ran the information Lummox JR is giving you, you would come out with the right answer? And you are taking things too seriously; Lighten up!

First of all, I want to say that there are better ways of doing things and there are worse ways. There is no "right" way to program. This is a topic that has been hit on in many posts before: there is no one way to do something, there is no "THE CODE". Maybe his way was better, but I still want my question answered.

Second, I am not taking things too seriously, I simply wanted to know why the operator would not compile. I do not need "lightening up", I am completely calm and under control. I simply had to restate my question a dozen times because it must not have been understood. I am not saying that it is any of their faults though. Maybe it was my fault. Maybe I just cannot get my thoughts accross clearly enough for people to understand what I am looking for. Maybe, maybe not. I am not looking, however, to blame this on any one person. Although I feel that I was clear enough, maybe I wasn't. People are biased in their favor, so maybe I can understand my question because I stated it, yet you cannot because I did not state it well.

-Loduwijk

Loduwijk wrote:

First of all, I want to say that there are better ways of doing things and there are worse ways. There is no "right" way to program. This is a topic that has been hit on in many posts before: there is no one way to do something, there is no "THE CODE". Maybe his way was better, but I still want my question answered.

I don't want to turn this into a philosophy course, but that there may not be a right way doesn't mean there's no wrong way. In fact several right ways may exist to any problem, or none, but there are always wrong ways.

I won't go back into the discussion of whether this was totally wrong or just a little wrong, but it certainly wasn't right. There probably is more than one right way to go about the problem at hand, but your approach didn't happen to be one of them.

Lummox JR