On 11/08/2011 09:48 AM, Henry Law wrote:
> On 08/11/11 16:13, Steve May wrote:
>> On 11/08/2011 05:28 AM, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>
>>> that doesn't demonstrate the problem alongside of the content-free
>>> complaint.
>>
>> Thank you for your insightful comments. 
>
> I sense your irritation;
Irritation?
Ah... well, I guess the smiley face didn't get my amusement across. I
realize that the 'seriousness' here is high, but I thought I'd danced
around that.
Guess not.
Sorry about that. It seems my communication skills have suffered along
with everything else this last year or so.
> The only way to get really high-quality help (and
> people of the highest quality hang out here, not excluding the author of
> the language himself) is to do what Rainer says, and what it says in the
> posting guidelines: *post something that can be run by anyone and that
> fails in the way you're describing*
>
Agreed.
> This doesn't mean the original code, proprietary or otherwise. It means
> a cut-down version, anonymised if necessary and with as many external
> things stubbed out as possible. And the very cutting-down will often
> help you to find the problem. As you're cutting down your real code
> suddenly something happens which gives you an insight into your own
> problem.
>
Of course, this problem turned out to be (mostly) a non-Perl problem.
paths/permissions were NOT what I expected and... well, it was a mess.
I mostly posted the original in a fit of frustration, and I doubted I
should at the time. But once you hit that send button....
Hell to get old and stupid(er) to begin with and then add in multiple
heart attacks, mini-strokes, drugs to prevent more of the same, etc. and
a person gets *really* loony.
I'll just go back to lurking now, thanks.
\s