STUFF Function

  • George Carlin would have had a field day with this thread. After all, STUFF is what life is about.

  • jeff.mason (5/24/2011)

    George Carlin would have had a field day with this thread. After all, STUFF is what life is about.

    And because there is never a bad time for George Carlin:

  • trickey

  • tricky

  • Tom.Thomson (5/24/2011)

    SanDroid (5/24/2011)

    Tom.Thomson (5/18/2011)

    SanDroid (5/18/2011)

    Carlton Leach (5/18/2011)

    Another bug vote here, and another wrong answer for me.

    NULL is NULL...fullstop. You never know what NULL is so regardless if you insert, concatenate, stick it somewhere in the string: the whole string is (SHOULD BE!) now unknown.

    My guess is anyone who got this right either ran the commands first, read the question wrong, of has bumped into this before.


    Or has used STUFF for the 11+ years it has worked this way... :hehe:

    I can say the documentation used to be better.

    That link doesn't say what STUFF does with a NULL last argument. So how can you say it tells us it worked that way for however many years, when it's the result of a NULL last argument that's at issue in this converstaion?

    Been waiting to answer just that question. I will give you the same answer I was given... You should always test any code. Test it a hundred times if you dont know exactly how something works or have not used it before.

    I know it sounds harsh, but this is how STUFF is. STUFF has always been this way and STUFF will continue to be this way. STUFF is everywhere, but STUFF does not act the same everywhere. That is just how STUFF and the world works. If you do not understand STUFF, or the documentation for STUFF, you should test your STUFF. Afterwards take a look again at the documentation and STUFF. If you realy learned some STUFF, you should understand STUFF and the differances of other STUFF better. Hopefully you can find the Humor in how STUFF is. Most people that can't laugh at STUFF have a harder life than others.

    Unfortunately that tells us that things should be checked by testing. It doesn't tell us why you claimed that the page you referenced said something it quite clearly didn't say. I suggest you read the page again to test whether it actually says what you claimed it said - apply your own "check everything by testing" to your own assertion (which certainly needs testing, as it was completely wrong). 😀

    Unfortunately you aparently read at the same comprehension level you right.

    If you can't find the answer you want in someone else's question it is not thier fault.

    Or in other words. Stuff yourself sill goose! :w00t:

Viewing 5 posts - 61 through 64 (of 64 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply