Re: OnClick Handler

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

On Mon, 05 May 2008 23:37:04 -0700, MichaelC <mike@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]
I've never heard the phrase "if you have no good to do so", but assuming
you mean that you shouldn't store the same thing twice if there's no need,
then you are making a tautological argument. You've started with the
assumption that there's no need, so of course you come to the conclusion
that there's no need.

Hardly, my statement was that you would use an alternative method if speed
was an issue.

No, that wasn't your statement at all. You wrote: "There is most definately [sic] something wrong with storing the same thing twice if you have no good to do so. This I thought was fairly well known." That contains no reference to "speed", nor is speed the only criteria here. The fact is, in its way, using the Tag property is _simpler_ than your proposal.

As speed is clearly not an issue in this case there is no need
to store the same thing twice.

Again with the tautology. You start with the unfounded assumption that speed is the only advantage that using the Tag property has, as if it's axiomatic. Well, it's not. You are simply taking as an assumption the very thing you're trying to prove.

I have no idea what you mean here. The phrase "possibly it is, possibly
it isn't" adds nothing, as it's a trivially true statement without any
actual meaning.

That was the point silly!!! It was meant to be trivial to reflect your
trivial statement.

What trivial statement? And why are you confusing the statement I actually wrote, that the phrase is "trivially true", with a more general statement that it's "trivial"?

You may well have intended your statement to be trivial, but that wasn't the observation I was making.

You might as well write "it's either true or it's false". The second
sentence is a colloqualism I don't recognize. If it's meant to add to
the discussion, it's lost on me.

Drawing a long bow means you're trying to associate 2 things that are really
quite different and drawing incorrect conclusions by doing that.

In the context of your overly broad generalization, you claim these examples are "really quite different"? That's rich.

The fact is, storing redundant information is a common technique. Asserting that it's always the wrong thing to do flies the face of timeless, useful engineering strategies.

There is zero chance of it getting messed up as long as the Tags are
updated any time the array is. So?

So what you're saying is there's zero chance of it getting messed up if you
don't mess it up.

No. My statement and your attempt to paraphrase it are quite different from each other.

The FACT is there is a possibility of it getting messed
up.

It's possible to mess anything up, if you're careless enough, including your own suggestion. There's nothing unduly complicated about using the Tag property as a back-reference that would introduce some significant risk of it being messed up.

[...]
And iterating over the array every time the mouse is clicked is also one
thing you don't _need_ to do. So?

As Jim stated you can get the framework to do it for you.

Actually, since we're talking about an array here, _I_ stated that. Tim (not Jim) stated that you can get the framework to do it if you use a List<T>.

Regardless, whether the framework does it or not, it's not something you _need_ to do. The question of whether you write the loop yourself or call a .NET method that already has the loop is irrelevant.

Fine. I dispute that criticism as well.

Of course you do, as usual.

You're right. It's quite common for me to dispute things that are incorrect. What's your point?

[...] Any claim you might have regarding it
superiority is based solely on your subjective opinion, and like or not
your opinion is not a valid basis for claims of superiority.

No, I've provided some fairly significant reasons as to why it's superior,

I haven't seen a single "fairly significant reason" posted by you. Only your inflated sense of the importance of the reasons you've stated causes you to describe them as "fairly significant". You've failed to demonstrate in any sort of logically sound way that the reasons are "fairly significant". We have only your subjective assertion that they are so.

Pete
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Aristotle and his tautological influence
    ... A tautology is the label for ''saying the same thing twice'' and what ... Conclusions as to what it means to formulate the same concept twice ... Logical validity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: storing password in variable
    ... > i'm prompted for a password (twice) each time openssl is invoked. ... > store the password in a variable, and use it each time openssl is invoked ... > throughout the script. ...
    (comp.unix.shell)
  • Re: Too much Michael Jackson
    ... much the tickets would be?! ... At a factory outlet mall I was at a few months ago there was a store ... Don't go to shopping malls very often and that one, only, maybe, once ... or twice a year; dentist's office! ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: compare values in the same field in consecutive rows--and store the result in an array
    ... this script to store more values, including some from line 102 in the ... of readers and awk users as it concerns data extraction and processing ... three questions on the modification of the latest script ... If you don't want n to increase twice, ...
    (comp.lang.awk)
  • Do I have gremlins?
    ... have had to reinstall it twice for different ... reasons. ... On both occasions, after installation, at ...
    (microsoft.public.win2000.general)