Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Variable argument function as a parameter of a variable argument function |
| Date | 2011-11-20 20:45 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <jacafp$2a4$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <00f0752d-f768-437a-87c5-0b3767c7411f@l24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <4EC94804.4E9F@mindspring.com> <e6730a8e-3cb9-49a5-aaaa-c7a36945474d@o1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com> <lnaa7qwdm2.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <ab6d0b3a-83b3-4b48-a65b-b00fa41a97cb@g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> |
On 11/20/2011 07:05 PM, AikidoGuy wrote: [You should identify who you're responding to] ... >> It's known as an "XY problem": "You want to do X, and you think Y is the >> best way of doing so. Instead of asking about X, you ask about Y." > > I did have an XY problem, but I wanted to do X and was checking to see > if > Y was the problem. I found out that it was not the problem and then > was > able to determine for myself how to solve X. I see nothing wrong with > this > approach. I believe it reduces what I need to explain to the group > since > I asked my simpler issue first. The fundamental problem with taking that approach is that you're assuming that you'll be able to solve X, if Y turns out not to be the right solution. If you know enough about X to justify that assumption, you should first try solving X on the assumption that Y is not the right solution; only ask about Y if not-Y leads you to a dead-end. If you do not know enough about X to justify that assumption, as is by far the most common case, asking about Y could end up drawing you into a long, drawn-out discussion of Y that does nothing to solve your real problem. In my experience on this newsgroup, such useless discussions are by far the most common result of the "XY" approach. -- James Kuyper
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Variable argument function as a parameter of a variable argument function AikidoGuy <aikidoguy@gmail.com> - 2011-11-19 23:02 -0800
Re: Variable argument function as a parameter of a variable argument function Ark <akhasin@macroexpressions.com> - 2011-11-20 03:14 -0500
Re: Variable argument function as a parameter of a variable argument function Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-11-20 08:07 -0500
Re: Variable argument function as a parameter of a variable argument function Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-11-20 08:11 -0500
Re: Variable argument function as a parameter of a variable argument function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-20 08:19 -0800
Re: Variable argument function as a parameter of a variable argument function pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-11-20 13:33 -0500
Re: Variable argument function as a parameter of a variable argument function AikidoGuy <aikidoguy@gmail.com> - 2011-11-20 15:29 -0800
Re: Variable argument function as a parameter of a variable argument function Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-20 15:58 -0800
Re: Variable argument function as a parameter of a variable argument function AikidoGuy <aikidoguy@gmail.com> - 2011-11-20 16:05 -0800
Re: Variable argument function as a parameter of a variable argument function James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-20 20:45 -0500
Re: Variable argument function as a parameter of a variable argument function AikidoGuy <aikidoguy@gmail.com> - 2011-11-20 20:18 -0800
Re: Variable argument function as a parameter of a variable argument function James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-21 07:22 -0500
Re: Variable argument function as a parameter of a variable argument function Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-21 22:43 +0000
csiph-web