pythonOCC examples doesn't work?

[Dwight Hutto]

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Prasad, Ramit
<ramit.prasad at jpmorgan.com> wrote:
> Dwight Hutto wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>  Others would be able to see this for themselves but
>> > you insist on sending email without context.  Please don't do this.
>>
>> How are my emails without context? I'm referring the OP to the docs,
>> as well as posts related to their question. It goes to use google, and
>> RTFM, and putting it politely to them.
>>
>
>
> I have noticed that you do not always quote what you are talking about.
> Sometimes I can guess or look at another message and see what you
> are talking about, but not always. This list philosophy seems to be
>  "quote what is relevant and trim what is not". Not on a
> "go lookup the previous message to find context".
>
>> I could summarize, but they have to do the real reading. I'm not
>> researching this, and if I was, I'd charge for the time. This is to
>> show that things can get complex if you don't use google, or read the
>> docs.
>
>
> Context is not the same as explaining absolutely everything.
> It means that I, the reader, can see *what* you are talking about
> and what you are responding *to*.
>
> I do agree with the stance not to spoon feed OP(s).
>
>>
>> Why does the OP keep asking here, when there are answers out there.
>> especiThey would still need to process transactions like cash while offline, and they would also need access to their inventory.ally on the pywin list, which Windows users are usually referred
>> to.
>
> I was not aware that Windows users were "usually" referred anywhere.
> Most referrals are on a case-by-case basis as many problems or
> questions from Windows Python developers are Python questions and
> not specific to pywin.
>
>>
>> Please point out what's out of context. The links and references place
>> it into context if the OP finds them useful, and I believe I searched
>> well for them.
>>
>> Would the OP like to tell me I wasn't helpful? Because now they're
>> probably on a search to figure out how to make these compatible, which
>> means more questions, and more reading.
>
> Nobody is claiming you are not helpful. I appreciate your effort,
> I just do not always know what is going on in a thread especially
> if I see the thread jump to something I can contribute to but now have
> no context with which to help. Not to mention that the archive for
> this list is searchable. Your answer is much more useful for future
> searchers if you leave some context for someone reading this.
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> Let's not argue about this, I was pointing them to what I saw as the
>> best possible resources to overcome his current problem, and it was
>> all in context of the conversation as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>
> It is in context of the "thread", but the context of the
> "conversation" was lost.
>
>
> This email is confidential and subject to important disclaimers and
> conditions including on offers for the purchase or sale of
> securities, accuracy and completeness of information, viruses,
> confidentiality, legal privilege, and legal entity disclaimers,
> available at http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/disclosures/email.
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Your point is taken. Most of the time, if it's in an in line response
I would write the email line by line, with the referenced text shown
above my response.

However, when it seems like a conversation, I just trim the above, and
respond. That's how I view an e-mail, like an ongoing conversation.

>From now on, I'll leave the mailing I'm responding to above, and
delete the point's I'm not talking about, which is about what I
usually do.

So being attacked about no context(which was an attack out of context,
based on a few messages one night), when the whole conversation is in
the topic reader/gmail/etc seemed a little ignorant to reading
through. All he had to do was look back up to the email s just above
my response, and see, or read just through mine, not read everyone.

But anyway, I'll be more informative as to exactly what I was
referencing, instead of treating it like an ongoing conversation where
everyone was present, and paying attention to the whole of the topic.


-- 
Best Regards,
David Hutto
CEO: http://www.hitwebdevelopment.com