>>That didn't sound sincere.
>
>It was'nt <g>
>

Then what was the point? In my opinion, your statement was critical of something that was never intended to be a complete solution:

"There are several potential problems here. First, an assumption is made that an alias called mytable exists. Further, it assumes that a field called field1 exists. Moreover, it assumes the data type of field1 is numeric. Finally, it is hardcoded. When ever you need to change a bitmap or something else, you will need to change code and re-compile."

It is your prerogative to add to a solution, but that really sounds like a strong criticism rather than a suggestion to make things more robust.


>>Are you suggesting that you never assume? You make assumptions regarding a >person's level of understanding everytime you speak/type. I think you assume >that people have a lower level of programing knowledge/expertise than Ed >assumes they have.
>
>Depending on the wording of the question - I can often tell at what level a person is coming from - and as such - match the response accordingly. And , when I can suggest a technique, I will. I guess I am just the type of person to not just whip off an answer in 10 words or less. I believe in being complete. Most folks tend to appreciate that. Its just a personal philosphy on my part - nothing more - nothing less.

Good for you. Some people don't have time to do anything more than "whip off an answer in 10 words or less." Yet, sometimes, and to be more exact, MOST of the time, that is enough. A simple push in the right direction.

I think you are missing the point. You stated that you felt very strongly that Ed's answer was not complete. My point is that I don't feel that an answer has to be a complete, robust, easily maintained, full-featured piece of code. Just a push in the right direction, thank you. I will work out the details. You see, I disagree with your criticism. What exactly are you arguing about? It is clear how you feel about the subject. I disagree. Period. And I said so.