Incredible. I've seen trolling, but this is something else. We could have just done everyone a service and let the thread wrap up naturally with a reported result, saving future knowledge-seekers some reading time. But that was not to be, as you again found injury in something I said that would have otherwise been of no consequence to a less fragile ego.
Naturally :) I must have imagined this thread going past Re^3
Thread went past Re^3 because there seems to be a compulsive need ITT to refute or "correct" minutia (even non technical and non-topical), and patronize as if a means of validation.
Actually only hope is reasonable, not expectation.
"Actually" I, along with those others who value hypothesis over hope as a scientific method, disagree with your belief that expectation can not be based in reason. You are entitled to believe (or hope) otherwise. BTW, "actually" is often considered patronizing when used to state an opinion.
Disbelief at the amount of work involved and incredulity that it doesn't just work, on the other hand is unreasonable.
Again, your tone is condescending, inaccurate, and based on misunderstanding. At no point was there an expression of disbelief at the quantity of work involved. I'm not sure what else I can say to make it clear to you if you can not see that I was actually seeking a solution that involved likely more work for the sake of programmatic rigor and elegance. Its quite easy to sit in a forum and say anyone who poses a question (which was in fact valid and well-posed) is "incredulous" that the method they are inquiring about hasn't worked thus far for them, and to tell them to "learn how the internet works". But it would better serve the forum's intent if respectful questions were met with respectful (and topical) replies.
You can help that effort by submitting a self-contained demonstration of the bug , and better yet, a patch to fix it as well :)
Finally (and ignoring the fact that I, in fact, did submit both code and example input and environment), your assumption that anyone said or implied there was a bug that needs patching is erroneous. This was a question of existence and application/limitations of features... some of which involved seeking knowledge from experience on alpha-level code, and non-trivial techniques for usage of other code. I clearly acknowledged limits mentioned in documentation. So anything I would (and may) submit would be a feature, not patch. Besides, by your own assertion, all such problems could be solved by your initial response, so who needs a patch?
Since you clearly find fault in nearly everything I say (right down to the minutia of "correcting" whether I can have valid expectation within the bounds of reason, or by recursively insisting that I was "insisting"), please refer to comments by other parties in this thread who treat the issue directly, politely and detached from ego, and as non-trivial. That said, I'm closing comment on offshoot semantics minutia. Feel free to pick away, if the pieces pad thine ego. <snark> One topic ripe for discussion is the errors in my insisting that you were insisting that I was insisting. Discuss. </snark> :)
