[racket] "lab notebook on learning process" (was: Re: Macros baffle me)

The question "who is at fault" is not meant as some kind of personal attack
(= emotional is what you meant?) at the "jerk(s)" responsible, but rather
as a question whose answer gives input to selecting the best course of
action.  Since my English isn't working today, in Racket:

;solve-problem : blame-who -> action
(define (alleviate-problem who)
  (case who
    [(Racket) (file-bug-report)]
    [(me) (stop-being-stupid)]
    [else (post-for-clarification)]))

The main use of this is to avoid filing bug reports for my own bugs.


On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:59 PM, Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 11:58:17AM -0400, Sean Kanaley wrote:
>
> > So technically it was my fault,
> > but the documentation could benefit from some kind of "WARNING!" section
> on
> > each or at least especially dangerous pages for such pitfalls.  Imagine
> if
> > your car explodes if you have the break depressed while turning the AC
> > dial.  Probably don't want that info on page 87 subsection a.1.c.  But
> > since there's no way to anticipate all potential user bugs, it's not
> really
> > the fault of the documentation writers either.  So who/what is at fault?
>
> A better question that 'who is at fault' would be 'what can be done to
> alleviate the problem'.
>
> I would make it less of an emotional issue.
>
> -- hendrik
> ____________________
>   Racket Users list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20140506/5d1f74b0/attachment.html>