I've been a professional instructor too. But as I said to Michel, that's not the question he asked. If you want to know nuances, then ask that question.



>Craig, I was a professional instructor for five years, actively teaching days/nights/Saturdays. One of the things I told students was to be careful of reactions to seemingly simple questions, because the reactions might keep conversations and discussion topics from otherwise happening.
>
>Sure, the majority of tools out there make it easy to test out features. But there might be nuances or gotchas. This is a technical discussion forum.
>
>Michel didn't need to ask, "How are you doing such and such?". Many times when questions are answered up here, the reply might include some context. Plus, there might be a few out there who aren't even aware of a particular function and might benefit from the discussion. There is a wealth of searchable information on .NET, VFP, and SQL topics up here.- with thoughtful and even generous answers provided by several who are "teachers at heart".
>
>You might say, "OK, yeah, but ATC is a basic function". Maybe so. But every so often I'll overhear people talk about a basic feature in SQL Server that I simply never came across.
>
>You hypothetically wagered that it would be faster to try out a function than to type a question and wait for a reply. Again, with a basic function, maybe so. But the "teaching" to which you referred is an organic process that includes discussions of nuances, gotchas, and other notes of "careful not to do this and this". If someone comes up and asks a very basic question about, say, database triggers, there will probably be a few answers that describe a few scenarios (and sure, encourage the person to try it out), even if the original question didn't necessarily ask for all that. Reason? I'll double your wager that true community leaders know that the wording of a question doesn't necessarily mean a limit, and there might be others reading who might benefit.