|No such thing as a small change|
I feel that Perl Monks exist on several strata, beyond the arbitrary ecclesiastical nomenclature. I would expect Abigail-II, merlyn and others to come up with a brilliant ways of solving the question; this in no way invalidates a less experienced monk's answers, it should ( and frequently does ) augment the contributions of less experienced monks.
If someone posts a wrong answer, then reply with an explanation of why it's wrong. This way the learning experience is increased. You educate more people: the poster of the "wrong" answer, and anyone who had the same misapprehension.
Weeding out these mistakes will weaken the educational worth of a thread. Retaining the mistakes gives a more rounded view of the subject and a demographic of the people who concurred with the "wrong way". This kind of stats is vital in reviewing documentation and enhancing the syntax. Obviously this data is by no means empirical, but at least flags mis-conceptions, for anyone who cares to look for them.
As a Perl Newbie some years ago, I felt it was important to dive in and contribute. The easier questions, perhaps should be left for the newer monks. It leaves seasoned Monks to add insight into wider issues like cross-platform implications, race-conditions and such that will be of worth and relevance. This way the initial thread is a vehicle to a wider theme, where monks of several levels of ability can profit.
In reply to Re: Re: Newbies, trying to help, and where to draw the line?