Thursday Update, April 19, 2012

Hayward said:

>>Yes, his comments that the devs should fill him in on the details of the problem are totally realistic.<<

Of course not, he is merely continuing down your rhetorical path with a hop,skip, and a jump. As you well know.

It may not the sanest suggestion, but it's a fair dinkum to link several supposedly minor errors, and ask what's up. As you well know.

>>That's why I'm supporting his demand to see the code. After all, you can't get more detailed than that. I'm sure we'll see a fix right after Tree_UK evaluates the code. <<

Well let me evaluate your code: Fails at run-time. Stack overflow.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

>>Yes, his comments that the devs should fill him in on the details of the problem are totally realistic.<<

Of course not, he is merely continuing down your rhetorical path with a hop,skip, and a jump. As you well know.

He's not continuing anything I said. He accused them of lying. There's only 1 way to solve that problem. Give Tree the code.