In article <117f8tokjjh1l18 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>,
howard (AT) antispahm (DOT) fmprosolutions.com says...
Probably not obvious. When I originally posted the calc, it was |
something I'd pulled out of my "toolbox". I didn't explain it in that
post because it would have taken me way too much thought to figure out
why I'd done it that way in the first place.
Although it's ironic that the number '42' will all of a sudden become
relevant to my life later this week, it's definitely not my pseudonym.
I'll second that I'm not Howard.
I think so. It was just that your answer did not provide the full answer |
yet, but the first step for me, concerning the full answer. Maybe this
was obvious to you - it wasn't for me.
Yes, it was quite obvious to me what was going on, and regrettably it
struck me from the nature of your question that it was quite obvious to
you too, excepting that one detail you originally asked about of course.
I'm really quite puzzled as to why you are now explaining to me why you |
couldn't use int(x).
Is 42 a pseudonym of Howard? It was not obvious to me that you knew his
conclusions at length. But maybe the problem was just too obvious so
that all of you had to come to the same conclusion - which I do
understand by now, but which I missed before, not thinking far enough.
Indeed I had to doublecheck that -you- were not Howard.
As when you
elaborated on why int(x) also did not work it struck me as if it were
something Howard would have said to further explain why he did what he
did. And that's why I was puzzled.
No apologies necessary on your part. It seems the only one who owes any
sort of apology would be me, for misunderstanding the extent of your
question, and assuming that you had already fully understood the
solution, save the one detail.