Include with variable

[hearurscream]

Well. Maybe not hours, but when I need something to laugh at, i go searching.

[xcal]

I now understand how it works. I was wrong. Sorry for confusing it.

Imagine if you had actually said something to that affect from the beginning.

[hearurscream]

True, Valik got around to the problem in about post #11, but he had to clarify to the OP to discredit your example.

[xcal]

I've seen a lot of forums with people like him. They much more enjoy exploiting some kind of 'power' they might have, rather than actually sharing or explaining anything.

I'm glad to understand exactly how it works now, though.

[hearurscream]

Ya, but if you don't act like a total nuthead, or in this case, try to explain something wrong, then he won't bother.

[xcal]

Ya, but if you don't act like a total nuthead, or in this case, try to explain something wrong, then he won't bother.

Ya, exactly. Which is, of course, not good for a community driven type site.

[Paulie]

Ya, exactly. Which is, of course, not good for a community driven type site.

Personally, i think this came from nothing more than you fighting desperately to cling to any shred of even potential correctness you can find in your original statement after Valik ripped it to pieces and threw it in your face.

I've been there before, i know how it feels to be called out on a mistake, but i highly recommend just walking away with your tail between your legs on this one.

Everyone makes mistakes, but smart people learn from them.

So just be smart, and make this a learning experience

Just some friendly advise

[herewasplato]

...This is't working:...

Welcome to the forum! I hope that you will hang around. I trust that you will enjoy AutoIt.

One way to lay out your code:

; select language
;...
$lang = "en"
;...

;
;validate user input
;


If $lang = "en" Then _English()

If $lang = "fr" Then _French()


;
;main body of script
;


Func _English()
    ;do/assign whatever
EndFunc

Func _French()
    ;do/assign whatever
EndFunc

If that layout does not work for you, tell us more about what you were going to code in those include files.

[xcal]

Personally, i think this came from nothing more than you fighting desperately to cling to any shred of even potential correctness you can find in your original statement after Valik ripped it to pieces and threw it in your face.

Umm it was never ripped in to pieces and thrown in my face until post #18 at which time I immediately said I was wrong, and sorry. So, that doesn't make any sense.

[Paulie]

Umm it was never ripped in to pieces and thrown in my face until post #18 at which time I immediately said I was wrong, and sorry. So, that doesn't make any sense.

I disagree, after you said you were wrong, (and you still pass the buck by saying "Imagine if you had actually said something to that affect from the beginning.") you proceeded to continue making several more posts accusing Valik of "exploiting his power" or not being "good for a community driven type site."

which are both (mostly) untrue comments (Okay so Valik does abuse his power a little bit... ), causing me to say that they were driven by you still trying to pretend to yourself at least that you didn't lose and there was actually some value to your original statement.

Too me, that make plenty of sense.

Votes for *Click* on this thread

[xcal]

shred of even potential correctness you can find in your original statement after Valik ripped it

I let my original statement go after it was ripped apart - I immediately acknowledged that. So that doesn't make sense.

"Imagine if you had actually said something to that affect from the beginning" isn't 'passing the buck.' It's a statement of fact...I accept the fact I was wrong. But things could have been much different.

Edited January 1, 2007 by xcal

[herewasplato]

...Votes for *Click* on this thread...

I would not do that to a new member. The OP might still have some use for this thread.

[locomaestro]

Paulie calm down don't try to defend valik even though he was right he still acts like a bitch by trying to get in an argument with someones who was wrong but actually was trying to help . Valik should of stoped but no he likes to get insult ppl who shortly don't know what they r talkin about(xcal)which makes him worst by arguing and talking shit of them and paulie it looks like u r his bitch or something by actually defending his balls( I wonder what other things I do with them lol) let valik make a fool of himself we don't need more idiots like him once is enough.

[Valik]

First general rule of thumb, xcal, don't argue with me, you won't win except in very rare cases. Second general rule, don't argue with the person who wrote the feature trying to tell them how it works, especially if that is me. Also, the fact is, instead of assuming you were right about how #include works (particularly when a developer is telling you that you are wrong), you could have done more (better) tests. There's also information on the forum about how #include works. There's really no excuse for you to continue to defend your incorrect assumptions.

As for those of you saying I abuse my power... how do you figure? I haven't used any of my moderator abilities in nearly a month, aside from moving threads to the correct forum. Is it because I dole out verbal assaults and am a moderator? If so, newsflash: I did that before I was a moderator. In fact, I've probably done it less since becoming a moderator. So before you people dive off into your word-holes and pull up rubbish like "abuse of power", make sure the person is actually using their power in the first place.

[Lakes]

I know I really should`nt reply to this, but pileing up rubbish into a word-hole?? (ok, I know I`m miss-quoting here, but thats how I read it at first), that made me laugh!!

Q. What do you do when a Word-Hole is full?

A. Get the EU to issue a directive, saying that anyone who does not recycle their words will be heavily fined!!

[xcal]

First general rule of thumb, xcal, don't argue with me, you won't win except in very rare cases. Second general rule, don't argue with the person who wrote the feature trying to tell them how it works, especially if that is me. Also, the fact is, instead of assuming you were right about how #include works (particularly when a developer is telling you that you are wrong), you could have done more (better) tests. There's also information on the forum about how #include works. There's really no excuse for you to continue to defend your incorrect assumptions.

Perhaps you're a 'special' coder who never makes a mistake. And for the 3rd time now, I never continued to defend my incorrect assumptions!

As for those of you saying I abuse my power... how do you figure? I haven't used any of my moderator abilities in nearly a month, aside from moving threads to the correct forum. Is it because I dole out verbal assaults and am a moderator? If so, newsflash: I did that before I was a moderator. In fact, I've probably done it less since becoming a moderator. So before you people dive off into your word-holes and pull up rubbish like "abuse of power", make sure the person is actually using their power in the first place.

I never said you abused moderator powers. I said you "much more enjoy exploiting some kind of 'power' they might have." Instead of explaining, you held back information that could have put the issue immediately to rest - so you could continue to exploit some kind of 'power' that you have.

[Valik]

Perhaps you're a 'special' coder who never makes a mistake. And for the 3rd time now, I never continued to defend my incorrect assumptions!

So it's not defending your incorrect assumptions when you're trying to prove the developer who wrote the code wrong? When a developer speaks, do yourself a favor and keep your idiot-hole shut and just listen. Arguing with me over something I created based on your own assumptions is idiotic. It took until post #18 to get you to stop trying to tell me how my own code worked. If that's not defending yourself, I don't know what is. This should have been all over in post #4 when I made it abundantly clear there were a very large number of problems with the code. Instead you run off at the mouth making baseless assumptions about how #include works, despite the fact that there is information on this forum explaining how it works (and apparently, despite the fact that the person who wrote it is telling you that you are wrong). You also continue to assume hypothetical ideal situations where your poor example will actually work for the original poster. It seems to me you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and when I called you on it, you started looking for any way out without being totally wrong - which you were.

I never said you abused moderator powers. I said you "much more enjoy exploiting some kind of 'power' they might have." Instead of explaining, you held back information that could have put the issue immediately to rest - so you could continue to exploit some kind of 'power' that you have.

As far as I'm concerned, a developer spoke. Issue over. But as I said before, you're one of those people who's too right to be wrong so you know more about the issue than the person who wrote the code. As for some "power", you're going to have to explain that one. I haven't any clue what you're rambling on about there if you're not accusing me of abusing moderator powers. What other powers do I have? Or at least, what other power do I have that I was exploiting?

Just to make it clear, I keep reiterating a certain point. That point is that I wrote the current #include logic. This has nothing to do with ego as you tried to insinuate earlier. It has everything to do with me being completely astounded that you would argue with the person who wrote something. In fact, arguing with any developer on any feature that's working correctly is pretty stupid.

[xcal]

So it's not defending your incorrect assumptions when you're trying to prove the developer who wrote the code wrong? When a developer speaks, do yourself a favor and keep your idiot-hole shut and just listen. Arguing with me over something I created based on your own assumptions is idiotic. It took until post #18 to get you to stop trying to tell me how my own code worked. If that's not defending yourself, I don't know what is.

I stopped defending my position when you explained how it actually worked. That was post #18. Post #18 is when you actually started speaking as a developer. Until then you were just acting like an angry teenager (I don't think you're a teenager - I'm talking about behavior only).

This should have been all over in post #4 when I made it abundantly clear there were a very large number of problems with the code.

Post #4 was your first response, which was: "Did you put any more thought into this answer than the OP did the question? Do you expect that to work how it's written when compiled and run on a different computer?" Ya, that was abundantly clear.

Instead you run off at the mouth making baseless assumptions about how #include works...

The assumptions weren't baseless. They were based on tests which I believe at the time were working. Of course, I was wrong, but I had no idea why I was wrong until you actually explained it at post #18.

...and apparently, despite the fact that the person who wrote it is telling you that you are wrong...

Coders make mistakes. People make mistakes. I don't believe something just because someone says something is so. I like explanations. I like to also know how it works.

You also continue to assume hypothetical ideal situations where your poor example will actually work for the original poster. It seems to me you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar and when I called you on it, you started looking for any way out without being totally wrong - which you were.

I never assumed any hypothetical situations where my poor example would work. I was actually doing the opposite of assuming. I was actually saying I don't know what he's doing. "I know about as much of what he's actually doing as you do. That would be nothing." Not very assuming.

As far as I'm concerned, a developer spoke. Issue over.

That's almost comical. Like the voice of God has spoken and I should just automatically shutup without an explanation. All you had to do was explain from the start how it worked and why that wouldn't work. The end. But no, you wanted to play with your 'power.'

But as I said before, you're one of those people who's too right to be wrong so you know more about the issue than the person who wrote the code.

I have absolutely no problem admitting when I'm wrong. The second you explained it, I knew I was wrong, said I was wrong, and apologized for being wrong.

As for some "power", you're going to have to explain that one. I haven't any clue what you're rambling on about there if you're not accusing me of abusing moderator powers. What other powers do I have? Or at least, what other power do I have that I was exploiting?

Knowledge.

Just to make it clear, I keep reiterating a certain point. That point is that I wrote the current #include logic. This has nothing to do with ego as you tried to insinuate earlier. It has everything to do with me being completely astounded that you would argue with the person who wrote something. In fact, arguing with any developer on any feature that's working correctly is pretty stupid.

Didn't know how it worked, and that it was working correctly, until you explained it. Why should I take it at face value, just because you say so? Maybe the day software gets released working 100% and bug free...

[Valik]

Well, xcal, as I said previously, I didn't think you were an idiot, but it seems that you indeed are. If you can't take a developer's word about something, then you're just plain stupid. I suggest you find yourself another language if this is how you're going to act here about our language. I may not have explained it until several posts later but I damn well expect some knave like you to listen when I tell you the language doesn't work like you claim.

In the future, be damn sure of what you post when trying to help people. And if a developer - especially me - tells you that you're wrong, shut up and listen, don't carry on like some damn fool who's too right to be wrong. Thread locked.