Hello Henning, Thursday, May 28, 2009, 2:30:18 AM, you wrote:
Bulat Ziganshin schrieb:
actually, i don't have much problems with errrmsgs now, but trying to grok how i interpret them i've found that i mainly use *position* part of message, it's enough for me most times :)
I have heard the statement "users are only interested in the error position" in a talk 2007 in RISC in Hagenberg. But I still try to understand error messages.
i'm not "uninterested". it's just faster for me to find message looking at the code rather than to decipher errmsg so while beginners crying at cryptic errmsgs, advanced beginners like me don't waste time trying to decrypt them :) but don't take it too seriously - for this particular message problem is only those inferred/expected interpretation, types by itself are helpful -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com