Help Please....

Page: 1 2
Jul 19 2008, 10:15 am
In response to DivineO'peanut
Look, I know you're probably excited to point out a mistake on my part, however I'm terribly sorry but you're the utterly wrong, ignorant one here. Maybe you should test stuff before spouting nonsense?
And maybe you should listen to people that the Reference proves my claims, whether you like it or not? There's no reason to argue over this. I don't care if you think that is not the case, myself, the Reference know it is, as well as, evidently, other people, and that is good enough.

DivineO'peanut wrote:
That's it. No special cases. Unless you can back up your claim somehow, I find your statement invalid.

Oh, no special cases?

Reference for + operator:
If A is a list, a new list is returned with B appended to the contents of A.

Please good sir. Do you need glasses, or a brain? Normally I wouldn't point that lacking out, but you deserve it for your responses to the other guys.
Jul 19 2008, 10:25 am
In response to DivineO'peanut
DivineO'peanut wrote:
Ah, I see where you got that information from. However, the reference is more up-to-date than the DM Guide, so I'll stick with the idea that += doesn't do anything different than +.

1 moment later: actually, I'm not really sure what to think, the reference is known for missing some information. I am ashamed to admit that I should've done more research before posting though.

If you look up list operators in the reference you'll se that it states that they have special meanings when dealing with lists. And yes the += is missing from the manual but it only adds to the contents of the exisitng list while + creates a new instance with all items.

While it's essentially the same thing if you assign afterwards like so:

ListA = ListA + ListB
ListA += ListB

The difference is the shorthand notation doesn't create the temporary list as it's unneccessary. It is neccessary with only + however so you can do something like

ListC = ListA + ListB

Hope that clarifies it for you at least
Jul 19 2008, 10:32 am
In response to Kaioken
Not only did you not understand my argument at all, had you read the discussion that started just a few posts above, you would've seen that this discussion is already over.

I was not trying to prove you wrong, I was curious as to why you were right. However difficult it is for you to comperhend that, your unpleasant attitude is unnecessary. The forums are a civil place, and making false claims as to one's intelligence (and might I add, eyesight) is insulting and stupid, to say the least.
Jul 19 2008, 10:43 am
In response to DivineO'peanut
DivineO'peanut wrote:
The forums are a civil place, and making false claims as to one's intelligence (and might I add, eyesight) is insulting and stupid, to say the least.

You did the same thing to me on [link].

So don't whine when people do it back at you.
Jul 19 2008, 10:49 am
In response to Andre-g1
My purpose was not to insult you, and I am sorry if you understood me in the wrong way. I did not call you ignorant, I pointed out your ignorance while writing that message, unlike Kaioken who specifically said "Do you lack a brain or good glasses," offensively referring to my actual traits (which, combined with the nature of the rest of his post, annoyed me).
Jul 19 2008, 11:03 am
In response to DivineO'peanut
DivineO'peanut wrote:
Not only did you not understand my argument at all,

Why, yes I have. It doesn't even matter, though.

had you read the discussion that started just a few posts above, you would've seen that this discussion is already over.

I read it. If you had read the post times, you'd have seen it was 'over' 5 minutes before I posted, and so those posts happened to be unread before I pressed the post button. Tough luck? But it doesn't even matter.

I was not trying to prove you wrong, I was curious as to why you were right.

Yes, but usually, before questioning what someone said when you have no actual solid knowledge to suggest he's wrong, you'd at least read the DM Reference and/or test it on your own. Since you're not one of those people that are unable to read the Reference for one reason or another, the above would have been logical to do.

However difficult it is for you to comperhend that, your unpleasant attitude is unnecessary. [...]

Indeed, like Andre suggested and I said in my previous post. Go look in the mirror. Incidentally, you are the one who immediately accused someone of 'sheer ignorance' just because he supported what I've said. As you've seen, he happened to have sense in his statements and was aware of the specifics from the DM Reference.

unlike Kaioken who specifically said "Do you lack a brain or good glasses," offensively referring to my actual traits (which, combined with the nature of the rest of his post, annoyed me).

As I said, I wouldn't have done it if I didn't feel you deserved it. Oh, and about being annoyed, I also tend to be annoyed when someone argues unfounded-ly without actually knowing about what he's arguing. If you 'think' something about a particular thing but you're not quite 'sure' of it, that's all fine and dandy, but then don't go arguing about it.
Jul 19 2008, 11:24 am
In response to Kaioken
Yes, but usually, before questioning what someone said when you have no actual solid knowledge to suggest he's wrong, you'd at least read the DM Reference and/or test it on your own. Since you're not one of those people that are unable to read the Reference for one reason or another, the above would have been logical to do.

And yet, I did not try to prove or suggest that you're wrong. I wanted your opinion, but you fail to see that.

Indeed, like Andre suggested and I said in my previous post. Go look in the mirror. Incidentally, you are the one who immediately accused someone of 'sheer ignorance' just because he supported what I've said. As you've seen, he happened to have sense in his statements and was aware of the specifics from the DM Reference.

I pointed out his ignorance because he failed to see what I was getting at (incidentally, I interpreted him in the wrong way too, but that's unrelated), not because he agreed with you.

As I said, I wouldn't have done it if I didn't feel you deserved it. Oh, and about being annoyed, I also tend to be annoyed when someone argues unfounded-ly without actually knowing about what he's arguing. If you 'think' something about a particular thing but you're not quite 'sure' of it, that's all fine and dandy, but then don't go arguing about it.

I did not argue, nor was I intending to argue with you. You're too quick to assumptions, and had you contemplated upon the contents of my post you'd have seen that I had zero ill intentions.

And I definitely do not deserve to be called "lacking a brain" by you, regardless of how you feel about me, or my posts.

In other news, this discussion is completely irrelevant. Please stop wasting my time.
Jul 19 2008, 11:29 am
In response to DivineO'peanut
DivineO'peanut wrote:
Yes, but usually, before questioning what someone said
And yet, I did not try to prove or suggest that you're wrong. I wanted your opinion, but you fail to see that.

Nope, I didn't. I only said you questioned what I've said, which you did.
Besides, I don't really see how you could request my opinion when replying to basically my opinion itself? Or, how meaningful would it'd have been if the conversation went like this:
"Why do you think X does Y?"
"Because I know it does, and the DM Reference says it does"
"Well, you know it can be wrong"
"Yes"
"So, why do you still think X does Y?"
"...Because, it does"
So, you were in fact questioning what I've said. Well, I'm always for looking things up before asking about them either way, whatever the case may be, actually.

I did not argue, nor was I intending to argue with you.

Not with me, I wasn't participating at that time in the topic.

You're too quick to assumptions, and had you contemplated upon the contents of my post you'd have seen that I had zero ill intentions.

That said, I definitely do not deserve to be called "lacking a brain" by you, regardless of how you feel about me, or my posts.

Why, you fail to see my true, non-ill intentions, and are too quick to make assumptions. I didn't claim you were lacking a brain, I merely asked you if you did; while truly not a nice thing to do, I admit I could not help doing it after you how you regarded the other person (or how that seemed to me at the time), as well as the fact you have failed to comprehend the very text you've been quoting, as it has proved what I've said correct (that would be the 'glasses' part).
Jul 19 2008, 11:30 am
In response to Kaioken
Ahh, I took it more literally, probably because I haven't noticed the difference in these two operators before. Nice. =)

M.verbs -= typesof(/admin/verb)+/admin/TakeVerbs 
//  I thought the former was suggested to be changed to the latter. 
M.verbs -= typesof(/admin/verb)+=/admin/TakeVerbs
Jul 19 2008, 11:35 am
In response to YMIHere
Well, the latter doesn't compile: in DM, the setting operators (=, and += etc to an extent, since it does modify the variable ['s contents] in a way) aren't meant to be used inside expressions, as you know (also, += probably requires a var on the left side). So that's another clue + does something different. Basically, + is a shorthand instead of having the overhead to manage stuff yourself and call Copy(). If it was like +=, the following code wouldn't work: 
for(var/X in Datum.vars-"name") //skip a certain var


Yeah, I used -, not +, but the principle between them and += and -= is the same of course.
Jul 19 2008, 11:41 am (Edited on Jul 19 2008, 11:47 am)
In response to Kaioken
Nope, I didn't. I only said you questioned what I've said, which you did.
Besides, I don't really see how you could request my opinion when replying to basically my opinion itself? Or, how meaningful would it'd have been if the conversation went like this:
"Why do you think X does Y?"
"Because I know it does, and the DM Reference says it does"
"Well, you know it can be wrong"
"Yes"
"So, why do you still think X does Y?"
"...Because, it does"
So, you were in fact questioning what I've said. Well, I'm always for looking things up before asking about them either way, whatever the case may be, actually.

... Huh? I was asking why you think that using the + operator when adding an item to a list is different than the += operator. That's it.

Why, you fail to see my true, non-ill intentions, and are too quick to make assumptions. I didn't claim you were lacking a brain, I merely asked you if you did; while truly not a nice thing to do, I admit I could not help doing it after you how you regarded the other person (or how that seemed to me at the time), as well as the fact you have failed to comprehend the very text you've been quoting, as it has proved what I've said correct (that would be the 'glasses' part).

You were clearly making an sarcastic, insulting remark towards me. Allow me to express my agitation (and serious need for a vacation):

Kaioken, are you overweight?

Oh, I truly apologize, I know it was a mean thing to do, but I couldn't help it after seeing the sheer size of your ego. Keep in mind I did not, in fact, say you were overweight.
Jul 19 2008, 11:48 am
In response to DivineO'peanut
DivineO'peanut wrote:
Allow me to express my agitation over a thread that would be deleted in a few hours anyway:

Allow me to express my honest thoughts: I don't believe the entire thread would be deleted, seeing as it was quite fine, mainly before you came to it. Usually, the moderators will most logically only prune the extraneous, unnecessary posts and/or the replies to them, by extension.

Kaioken, are you pergnant?

Depends on what that made up word means, I suppose?

Oh, I truly apologize, I know that wasn't a very nice thing to do, but I just could not help [...]

Might I point out the wrongness of you attempting to bring my previous statement in a worse light? Why, while what I've said was quite relevant as a possible deduction from the thread, yours is quite out-of-place and therefore quite uncalled for; it does not really contribute in bringing over any possibly meaningful thing to the thread, unlike mine which was relevant as it pointed out you did quite fail to see the point of text in your own post.
As a BTW note, I'm not really sure why you think I'd be offended by the above stab? I didn't even find it particularly unnice, just illogical. Seems to me you need to work on those.

Now that I said that, we're equal. All good.
Good Bye.
Jul 19 2008, 12:00 pm
In response to Kaioken
Allow me to express my honest thoughts: I don't believe the entire thread would be deleted, seeing as it was quite fine, mainly before you came to it. Usually, the moderators will most logically only prune the extraneous, unnecessary posts and/or the replies to them, by extension.

The branch of a thread that started with my post, might. But the branch of the thread that started with your preaching (which led to this argument) surely would.

Just as you said using the += operator is more efficient, I was questioning that information, and so I asked you why in light that you or I might've been wrong, and because of my curiousity. That part is at least relevant to the forum.

Might I point out the wrongness of you attempting to bring my previous statement in a worse light? Why, while what I've said was quite relevant as a possible deduction from the thread, yours is quite out-of-place and therefore quite uncalled for; it does not really contribute in bringing over any possibly meaningful thing to the thread, unlike mine which was relevant as it pointed out you did quite fail to see the point of text in your own post.
As a BTW note, I'm not really sure why you think I'd be offended by the above stab? I didn't even find it particularly unnice, just illogical. Seems to me you need to work on those.

I wasn't trying to insult you, I was showing you how stupid what you said a moment ago was. I suppose "pregnant" was a overdoing it. I rewrote that part of my post in a hopefully less offensive light.
Jul 19 2008, 5:04 pm
In response to Kaioken
Ah, I see. For one sec I thought you said they have different purposes but actually you were just telling me that they act differently and += would be better to use for this case. Thank you.
Page: 1 2