Problem with a script

**Rami Elomaa** · Apr 10 '07, 04:55 PM

Re: Problem with a script

Jerim79 kirjoitti:

Here it is:
>
<?php
>

....A few hundred lines of code snipped...

>
I tried formatting it for easy viewing, don't know if I succeeded. A
brief explanation is in order. The first page of the form asks a user
for a number and their email address. The number and email address are
passed to the second page of the form, which is the script listed
above. First thing we do is declare local variables. Next, we check
for any empty variables. If there are, $error>0 and we display the
form. If $error<=0, we call the submit.php page which writes
everything to the database.
>
The FOR loop in the middle determines if a customer entered a number
on the previous page. If there is a number, then it executes the next
block of code. If not, we skip this section. This way, if the customer
enters 0 or nothing for the number on the first page, then we don't
clutter up the screen with those questions. The WHILE loop right below
there, repeats certain questions for the number of times the user
entered on the first page. So there is a set of questions that is
asked once of all users, and a set of questions that is asked a number
of times, depending on what number the customer entered. The form
repeats the questions the correct number of times.
>
I am trying to accomplish some form of data verification. For the
first set of question, data verification works correctly, by not
allowing you to move further until every question is answered.
However, it automatically displays the error messages when the page
loads. I can't use an inline if($_SERVER['REQUEST_METHOD ']=='POST')
{ echo $msg[i]; } method, since the form is always posted. Inside of
the WHILE loop, I can only get it to verify $Variable9. It doesn't
even check the other fields . Since the same question may be asked 10
times, I need to specify which occurrence of the question was not
answered. That is why I use the FOR loop.
>
If you know of a way to make the current code work, or if you have a
better idea of how to do this from top to bottom, please let me know.
I would like to also be able to carry over the user's selections, so
that they don't have to recheck each box, if they only left off one.
>

1) You really really need to learn how to use loops. Copy&pasting the
same code 10 times is insane.

For example:
if (empty($Variabl e1)){
$msg1=" * You have not answered this question.";
$error++;
}
if (empty($Variabl e2)){
$msg2=" * You have not answered this question.";
$error++;
}
if (empty($Variabl e3)){
$msg3=" * You have not answered this question.";
$error++;
} ........ the same thing over and over again, why not just use a loop?

This becomes one simple loop easily, but you might want to use an array
in that case:

for($i=1;$i<=8; $i++){
if (empty($Variabl e[$i])){
$msg[$i]=" * You have not answered this question.";
$error++;
}
}

2) TLDR, Too Long, Didn't Read. Post a conciderably shorter code sample
and someone might actually get intrested in it. Pasting 1000 lines of
codes makes you look like you have no idea what the problem is and how
to start fixing it. Instead, post only the piece of code that matters.
I'm not gonna dig thru all that spaghetti trying to find the problem,
and I think most people here wouldn't either...

--
Rami.Elomaa@gma il.com
"Olemme apinoiden planeetalla."

**Schraalhans Keukenmeester** · Apr 10 '07, 10:25 PM

Re: Problem with a script

Jerim79 wrote:

Here it is:
>
<?php
>
if($_SERVER['REQUEST_METHOD ']=='POST'){
>

[snip]

If you know of a way to make the current code work, or if you have a
better idea of how to do this from top to bottom, please let me know.
I would like to also be able to carry over the user's selections, so
that they don't have to recheck each box, if they only left off one.

I don't mean to offend you or discourage you from working with PHP, but:
The way you coded the posted script gives me the impression you haven't
yet grasped and practiced with the basic building blocks of PHP or maybe
even programming in general. (See Rami's comments)

Reworking your huge script into something concise, correct and 'a common
sense coding practise' would probably result in a script hardly
comparable to yours, rendering it mostly useless as a learning
possibility. Commenting/correcting on a line by line basis would require
a post a mile longer than your is already.

If all you really want is a fix for a specific detail, give us only that
and leave out the rest.

Personally I think you may be helped more by leaving this spaghetti for
later, and start getting to grips with PHP's building blocks first. Get
a good (e-)book or tutorial site and begin with short examples and
experiments that help you understand the concepts and PHP's way of doing
things. I know they say PHP has a short learning curve, and compared to
some/many other languages it probably does, but trying to sail even the
simplest boat before you know bow from stern is not advisable.

If I am completely off the mark here, I'm sorry. I just can't find
anything in this post that proves me wrong.

Which books/sites are good/great/rubbish is mainly a subjective choice.
O'Reilly has a few that match MY taste, some are fond of the YOU-NAME-IT
for Dummies approach, others prefer a really dry & theoretical but very
exhausting summary. The pick is yours!

GL.

Sh.

**Jerim79** · Apr 12 '07, 02:25 PM

Re: Problem with a script

On Apr 10, 5:15 pm, Schraalhans Keukenmeester <bitbuc...@inva lid.spam>
wrote:

Jerim79 wrote:

Here it is:

>

<?php

>

if($_SERVER['REQUEST_METHOD ']=='POST'){

>
[snip]
>

If you know of a way to make the current code work, or if you have a
better idea of how to do this from top to bottom, please let me know.
I would like to also be able to carry over the user's selections, so
that they don't have to recheck each box, if they only left off one.

>
I don't mean to offend you or discourage you from working with PHP, but:
The way you coded the posted script gives me the impression you haven't
yet grasped and practiced with the basic building blocks of PHP or maybe
even programming in general. (See Rami's comments)
>
Reworking your huge script into something concise, correct and 'a common
sense coding practise' would probably result in a script hardly
comparable to yours, rendering it mostly useless as a learning
possibility. Commenting/correcting on a line by line basis would require
a post a mile longer than your is already.
>
If all you really want is a fix for a specific detail, give us only that
and leave out the rest.
>
Personally I think you may be helped more by leaving this spaghetti for
later, and start getting to grips with PHP's building blocks first. Get
a good (e-)book or tutorial site and begin with short examples and
experiments that help you understand the concepts and PHP's way of doing
things. I know they say PHP has a short learning curve, and compared to
some/many other languages it probably does, but trying to sail even the
simplest boat before you know bow from stern is not advisable.
>
If I am completely off the mark here, I'm sorry. I just can't find
anything in this post that proves me wrong.
>
Which books/sites are good/great/rubbish is mainly a subjective choice.
O'Reilly has a few that match MY taste, some are fond of the YOU-NAME-IT
for Dummies approach, others prefer a really dry & theoretical but very
exhausting summary. The pick is yours!
>
GL.
>
Sh.

This may come as a total shock to you, and if it does I apologize, but
I don't really care what either of you think concerning my skills. I
am proud of what I have, and it works. It may not be the way you
personally would have done it, but then again, I am not you. To say
that I have no understanding of loops is completely asinine. I use
loops throughout the script. I don't use loops in every particular
instance, because:
1) The script is fresh and I want to maintain some sense of
maintainability for the moment. Condensing things into loops is great
once everything is working and you are sure that the loop will work/
stay. When you are working on something, it is usually best to leave
it in a "spread out" nature so that you can easily identify a problem
as well as keep the design straight. Loops, especially in the early
stages of a script, often become shrouds that cover up where the
problem is occurring.
2) This is not the final version of the script. Tightening up of
a script occurs after you have it working. If you can build a script
from scratch and code it perfectly the first time, every time, then
good for you. Every one else in the universe though usually has to go
through several iterations of a script before they are done. (True,
given enough time, we should all theoretically spend much more time in
design than production. But who has that kind of time?)
3) I don't pretend that I will stay in the same position forever.
Nor do I want some form that only mid level programmers will
understand. When I create something, I want to make sure that someone
else will be able to understand it. Sure, we could all code something
as condensed/complicated as we can, but what of the poor programmer
who comes behind us, who may not be as skilled? I try to straddle the
line between efficient code and maintainable code by a reasonably
knowledgeable programmer for my position. If I am working at small
business with a history of hiring low knowledge employees, I dumb it
down. If I am working at a Fortune 500 company with a history of
hiring only the brightest, then I wouldn't see a problem going as far
you want. I am not saying this applies in this case, but I wanted to
throw that in while I am on the subject of programming.

I have no fundamental knowledge of programming, eh? Really? I can
program in Java, C++, and VB.net. Although I will never present myself
as an expert programmer, maybe not even an experienced one, I most
certainly have a solid grasp of programming. Just because a person
doesn't do something the way you would do it at any particular stage
in the process, doesn't mean they don't have a clue. That is a very
arrogant attitude. I guess like Rami, you are basing that off of me
not using a loop in every particular place that you feel I should. I
wonder if you two would go to the start of the assembly line at the
auto factory, and complain that the car doesn't even have windows
yet.

As for the loop that was given, it may surprise you that I don't label
my variables as $VariableX. Variables should have unique names that
signify what they are. Seeing as how I have unique names for my
variables, a loop there becomes impractical. Unless of course I
utilize pointers, which is open to a matter of discussion of whether
it is worth it or not.

The number one goal should always be to make it work. Trying to
impress everyone with your made programming skills should always take
a back seat to that. But thanks for the criticism that completely
didn't address my question in any form. That was greatly appreciated.
BTW, I was able to solve my own problem. I might even go back and take
out all the loops, remove local variables, take out the method check,
and the data verification. You know, since I don't know what I am
doing and all. :)

**Jerim79** · Apr 12 '07, 02:25 PM

Re: Problem with a script

This may come as a total shock to you, and if it does I apologize, but
I don't really care what either of you think concerning my skills. I
am proud of what I have, and it works. It may not be the way you
personally would have done it, but then again, I am not you. To say
that I have no understanding of loops is completely asinine. I use
loops throughout the script. I don't use loops in every particular
instance, because:
1) The script is fresh and I want to maintain some sense of
maintainability for the moment. Condensing things into loops is great
once everything is working and you are sure that the loop will work/
stay. When you are working on something, it is usually best to leave
it in a "spread out" nature so that you can easily identify a problem
as well as keep the design straight. Loops, especially in the early
stages of a script, often become shrouds that cover up where the
problem is occurring.
2) This is not the final version of the script. Tightening up of
a script occurs after you have it working. If you can build a script
from scratch and code it perfectly the first time, every time, then
good for you. Every one else in the universe though usually has to go
through several iterations of a script before they are done. (True,
given enough time, we should all theoretically spend much more time in
design than production. But who has that kind of time?)
3) I don't pretend that I will stay in the same position forever.
Nor do I want some form that only mid level programmers will
understand. When I create something, I want to make sure that someone
else will be able to understand it. Sure, we could all code something
as condensed/complicated as we can, but what of the poor programmer
who comes behind us, who may not be as skilled? I try to straddle the
line between efficient code and maintainable code by a reasonably
knowledgeable programmer for my position. If I am working at small
business with a history of hiring low knowledge employees, I dumb it
down. If I am working at a Fortune 500 company with a history of
hiring only the brightest, then I wouldn't see a problem going as far
you want. I am not saying this applies in this case, but I wanted to
throw that in while I am on the subject of programming.

I have no fundamental knowledge of programming, eh? Really? I can
program in Java, C++, and VB.net. Although I will never present myself
as an expert programmer, maybe not even an experienced one, I most
certainly have a solid grasp of programming. Just because a person
doesn't do something the way you would do it at any particular stage
in the process, doesn't mean they don't have a clue. That is a very
arrogant attitude. I guess like Rami, you are basing that off of me
not using a loop in every particular place that you feel I should. I
wonder if you two would go to the start of the assembly line at the
auto factory, and complain that the car doesn't even have windows
yet.

As for the loop that was given, it may surprise you that I don't label
my variables as $VariableX. Variables should have unique names that
signify what they are. Seeing as how I have unique names for my
variables, a loop there becomes impractical. Unless of course I
utilize pointers, which is open to a matter of discussion of whether
it is worth it or not.

The number one goal should always be to make it work. Trying to
impress everyone with your mad programming skills should always take
a back seat to that. But thanks for the criticism that completely
didn't address my question in any form. That was greatly appreciated.
BTW, I was able to solve my own problem. I might even go back and take
out all the loops, remove local variables, take out the method check,
and the data verification. You know, since I don't know what I am
doing and all. :)

**Rami Elomaa** · Apr 12 '07, 04:05 PM

Re: Problem with a script

Jerim79 kirjoitti:

As for the loop that was given, it may surprise you that I don't label
my variables as $VariableX. Variables should have unique names that
signify what they are. Seeing as how I have unique names for my
variables, a loop there becomes impractical. Unless of course I
utilize pointers, which is open to a matter of discussion of whether
it is worth it or not.

Okay, so variables have unique labels, that doesn't mean they still
couldn't be handled in a loop. I'll just tell you what I personally
would do, and I'm not trying to say this is how you should do it.

Php's arrays can be both indexed and associative, I'd use the lable
strings as keys instead of numbers.

Okay, so the variables aren't called $variable1, $variable2, but let's
say Peter, Paul and Mary, etc... So just make a array of them:
$my_labels = array('Peter', 'Paul', 'Mary',);

Collect the values from form:
foreach($my_lab els as $key)
$my_values[$key] = $_POST[$key];

Then check for errors:
foreach($my_val ues as $key =$val)
if (empty($val)){
$msg[$key] = " * You have not answered this question.";
$error++;
}

You still have them as uniquely named array indexes... (indices? whatever.)

I believe that for the new guy this code would be readable, and
identifying problems should really not be any more difficult with this,
plus I think that it actually might save some time to write the actual
code from the beginnig, even though it's not at it's final stage,
instead of first writing everything spread out, and then rewriting the
same code again cleaned. If anything, writing the code twice will only
introduce new bugs which still would need to be detected.

However, my original intent was not to concentrate on the bad code, err,
your personal style of writing test code, but to draw your attention to
the fact that there was so much of it. When you write to a forum such as
this, requesting for help, do concider trimming the code to a very very
short piece where the problem is shown. If you post several hundreds of
lines of code, who's gonna start reading it all? Most just take a
glimpse at it and think "spaghetti! " and ignore it. Had you isolated the
problem to less than 20 lines, people might've actually paid attention
to it and been able to help you with it. You see, people in c.l.php have
the patience of an adhd child high on sugar. If the problem isn't solved
within 10 seconds, it's ignored. If you expect a person to spend an hour
reading your entire code and parsing it in their head, you wont get any
help and have to solve the problem by yourself.

I'm sure you have your own style of coding and after reading your
explanation you've convinced me that you may not actually be entirely
rookie in coding. The difficlty seems to be that you've not yet grasped
the fine skill of posting a question to usenet. I wouldn't want to think
that this was all waste of both of our time, so I'll try to learn the
lesson here and not judge people and their code so harshly, if you'll
consider sending shorter piece of sample code the next time you post,
agreed? :)

A final word on refusing to use loops is an educating story on Worse
Than Failure (formerly known as The Daily WTF) that you might want to
read: http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles...ur_Digits.aspx

--
Rami.Elomaa@gma il.com

"Wikipedia on vähän niinq internetin raamattu, kukaan ei pohjimmiltaan
usko siihen ja kukaan ei tiedä mikä pitää paikkansa." -- z00ze

**Tim Streater** · Apr 12 '07, 04:45 PM

Re: Problem with a script

In article <evll5o$ont$1@n yytiset.pp.htv. fi>,
Rami Elomaa <rami.elomaa@gm ail.comwrote:

[snip]

You still have them as uniquely named array indexes... (indices? whatever.)
>
I believe that for the new guy this code would be readable, and
identifying problems should really not be any more difficult with this,
plus I think that it actually might save some time to write the actual
code from the beginnig, even though it's not at it's final stage,
instead of first writing everything spread out, and then rewriting the
same code again cleaned. If anything, writing the code twice will only
introduce new bugs which still would need to be detected.

I agree it's very important to code clearly for those who will follow
and probably maintain the code. The idea of making a working but messy
version I find bizarre - probably the OP is much cleverer than me. I
could never work this way; I prefer to take the time to construct the
final version.

However, my original intent was not to concentrate on the bad code, err,
your personal style of writing test code, but to draw your attention to
the fact that there was so much of it. When you write to a forum such as
this, requesting for help, do concider trimming the code to a very very
short piece where the problem is shown. If you post several hundreds of
lines of code, who's gonna start reading it all?

Not me that's for damn sure.

Most just take a glimpse at it and think "spaghetti! " and ignore it.

Just what I did.

Had you isolated the
problem to less than 20 lines, people might've actually paid attention
to it and been able to help you with it. You see, people in c.l.php have
the patience of an adhd child high on sugar. If the problem isn't solved
within 10 seconds, it's ignored. If you expect a person to spend an hour
reading your entire code and parsing it in their head, you wont get any
help and have to solve the problem by yourself.

Yep, that's it. You have to capture people's interest with your post.
And there was no evidence that the OP had spent any time doing his own
debugging and reducing the (as far as I could tell unspecified) problem
to a short piece of code.

I'm sure you have your own style of coding and after reading your
explanation you've convinced me that you may not actually be entirely
rookie in coding. The difficlty seems to be that you've not yet grasped
the fine skill of posting a question to usenet. I wouldn't want to think
that this was all waste of both of our time, so I'll try to learn the
lesson here and not judge people and their code so harshly, if you'll
consider sending shorter piece of sample code the next time you post,
agreed? :)
>
A final word on refusing to use loops is an educating story on Worse
Than Failure (formerly known as The Daily WTF) that you might want to
read: http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles...ur_Digits.aspx

Ouch.

-- tim

**Jerim79** · Apr 12 '07, 05:35 PM

Re: Problem with a script

On Apr 10, 11:52 am, Rami Elomaa <rami.elo...@gm ail.comwrote:

Jerim79 kirjoitti:
>

Here it is:

>

<?php

>
...A few hundred lines of code snipped...
>
>
>
>
>

I tried formatting it for easy viewing, don't know if I succeeded. A
brief explanation is in order. The first page of the form asks a user
for a number and their email address. The number and email address are
passed to the second page of the form, which is the script listed
above. First thing we do is declare local variables. Next, we check
for any empty variables. If there are, $error>0 and we display the
form. If $error<=0, we call the submit.php page which writes
everything to the database.

>

The FOR loop in the middle determines if a customer entered a number
on the previous page. If there is a number, then it executes the next
block of code. If not, we skip this section. This way, if the customer
enters 0 or nothing for the number on the first page, then we don't
clutter up the screen with those questions. The WHILE loop right below
there, repeats certain questions for the number of times the user
entered on the first page. So there is a set of questions that is
asked once of all users, and a set of questions that is asked a number
of times, depending on what number the customer entered. The form
repeats the questions the correct number of times.

>

I am trying to accomplish some form of data verification. For the
first set of question, data verification works correctly, by not
allowing you to move further until every question is answered.
However, it automatically displays the error messages when the page
loads. I can't use an inline if($_SERVER['REQUEST_METHOD ']=='POST')
{ echo $msg[i]; } method, since the form is always posted. Inside of
the WHILE loop, I can only get it to verify $Variable9. It doesn't
even check the other fields . Since the same question may be asked 10
times, I need to specify which occurrence of the question was not
answered. That is why I use the FOR loop.

>

If you know of a way to make the current code work, or if you have a
better idea of how to do this from top to bottom, please let me know.
I would like to also be able to carry over the user's selections, so
that they don't have to recheck each box, if they only left off one.

>
1) You really really need to learn how to use loops. Copy&pasting the
same code 10 times is insane.
>
For example:
if (empty($Variabl e1)){
$msg1=" * You have not answered this question.";
$error++;}
>
if (empty($Variabl e2)){
$msg2=" * You have not answered this question.";
$error++;}
>
if (empty($Variabl e3)){
$msg3=" * You have not answered this question.";
$error++;
>
} ........ the same thing over and over again, why not just use a loop?
>
This becomes one simple loop easily, but you might want to use an array
in that case:
>
for($i=1;$i<=8; $i++){
if (empty($Variabl e[$i])){
$msg[$i]=" * You have not answered this question.";
$error++;
}
>
}
>
2) TLDR, Too Long, Didn't Read. Post a conciderably shorter code sample
and someone might actually get intrested in it. Pasting 1000 lines of
codes makes you look like you have no idea what the problem is and how
to start fixing it. Instead, post only the piece of code that matters.
I'm not gonna dig thru all that spaghetti trying to find the problem,
and I think most people here wouldn't either...
>
--
Rami.Elo...@gma il.com
"Olemme apinoiden planeetalla."

Who ever said I don't know how to use loops? I use loops throughout
the code. I know this concept is hard for you to grasp, but I don't
actually name all my variables $VariableX. I have unique names for
them. I obviously changed the names, because I don't want anyone
recognizing the script or where it is from. But yeah, you're right,
better to just assume I am retarded.

Funny how you say it is too long, yet someone else has already posted
a reply elsewhere. A meaningful reply, will actual help. If it was too
long that you didn't read it, then perhaps you shouldn't post a reply,
since not having read it, you can't really give an informed opinion.

**Jerim79** · Apr 12 '07, 08:25 PM

Re: Problem with a script

On Apr 12, 11:01 am, Rami Elomaa <rami.elo...@gm ail.comwrote:

Jerim79 kirjoitti:
>

As for the loop that was given, it may surprise you that I don't label
my variables as $VariableX. Variables should have unique names that
signify what they are. Seeing as how I have unique names for my
variables, a loop there becomes impractical. Unless of course I
utilize pointers, which is open to a matter of discussion of whether
it is worth it or not.

>
Okay, so variables have unique labels, that doesn't mean they still
couldn't be handled in a loop. I'll just tell you what I personally
would do, and I'm not trying to say this is how you should do it.
>
Php's arrays can be both indexed and associative, I'd use the lable
strings as keys instead of numbers.
>
Okay, so the variables aren't called $variable1, $variable2, but let's
say Peter, Paul and Mary, etc... So just make a array of them:
$my_labels = array('Peter', 'Paul', 'Mary',);
>
Collect the values from form:
foreach($my_lab els as $key)
$my_values[$key] = $_POST[$key];
>
Then check for errors:
foreach($my_val ues as $key =$val)
if (empty($val)){
$msg[$key] = " * You have not answered this question.";
$error++;
}
>
You still have them as uniquely named array indexes... (indices? whatever..)
>
I believe that for the new guy this code would be readable, and
identifying problems should really not be any more difficult with this,
plus I think that it actually might save some time to write the actual
code from the beginnig, even though it's not at it's final stage,
instead of first writing everything spread out, and then rewriting the
same code again cleaned. If anything, writing the code twice will only
introduce new bugs which still would need to be detected.
>
However, my original intent was not to concentrate on the bad code, err,
your personal style of writing test code, but to draw your attention to
the fact that there was so much of it. When you write to a forum such as
this, requesting for help, do concider trimming the code to a very very
short piece where the problem is shown. If you post several hundreds of
lines of code, who's gonna start reading it all? Most just take a
glimpse at it and think "spaghetti! " and ignore it. Had you isolated the
problem to less than 20 lines, people might've actually paid attention
to it and been able to help you with it. You see, people in c.l.php have
the patience of an adhd child high on sugar. If the problem isn't solved
within 10 seconds, it's ignored. If you expect a person to spend an hour
reading your entire code and parsing it in their head, you wont get any
help and have to solve the problem by yourself.
>
I'm sure you have your own style of coding and after reading your
explanation you've convinced me that you may not actually be entirely
rookie in coding. The difficlty seems to be that you've not yet grasped
the fine skill of posting a question to usenet. I wouldn't want to think
that this was all waste of both of our time, so I'll try to learn the
lesson here and not judge people and their code so harshly, if you'll
consider sending shorter piece of sample code the next time you post,
agreed? :)
>
A final word on refusing to use loops is an educating story on Worse
Than Failure (formerly known as The Daily WTF) that you might want to
read:http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles...ur_Digits.aspx
>
--
Rami.Elo...@gma il.com
>
"Wikipedia on vähän niinq internetin raamattu, kukaan ei pohjimmiltaan
usko siihen ja kukaan ei tiedä mikä pitää paikkansa." -- z00ze

Perhaps I was too hasty in my original reply and if so, I apologize. I
certainly don't want to take all my frustration out on one person.
Having been around programmers for a while, I have run into the "My
way is the only way" attitude. Perhaps I am too quick to pounce on
anyone who I think exhibits that behavior, even if they don't. My
apologies. I always love to learn new things.

**Schraalhans Keukenmeester** · Apr 13 '07, 07:45 AM

Re: Problem with a script

Jerim79 wrote:

On Apr 12, 11:01 am, Rami Elomaa <rami.elo...@gm ail.comwrote:

>Jerim79 kirjoitti:
>>

>>As for the loop that was given, it may surprise you that I don't label
>>my variables as $VariableX. Variables should have unique names that
>>signify what they are. Seeing as how I have unique names for my
>>variables, a loop there becomes impractical. Unless of course I
>>utilize pointers, which is open to a matter of discussion of whether
>>it is worth it or not.

>Okay, so variables have unique labels, that doesn't mean they still
>couldn't be handled in a loop. I'll just tell you what I personally
>would do, and I'm not trying to say this is how you should do it.
>>
>Php's arrays can be both indexed and associative, I'd use the lable
>strings as keys instead of numbers.
>>
>Okay, so the variables aren't called $variable1, $variable2, but let's
>say Peter, Paul and Mary, etc... So just make a array of them:
>$my_labels = array('Peter', 'Paul', 'Mary',);
>>
>Collect the values from form:
>foreach($my_la bels as $key)
> $my_values[$key] = $_POST[$key];
>>
>Then check for errors:
>foreach($my_va lues as $key =$val)
> if (empty($val)){
> $msg[$key] = " * You have not answered this question.";
> $error++;
> }
>>
>You still have them as uniquely named array indexes... (indices? whatever.)
>>
>I believe that for the new guy this code would be readable, and
>identifying problems should really not be any more difficult with this,
>plus I think that it actually might save some time to write the actual
>code from the beginnig, even though it's not at it's final stage,
>instead of first writing everything spread out, and then rewriting the
>same code again cleaned. If anything, writing the code twice will only
>introduce new bugs which still would need to be detected.
>>
>However, my original intent was not to concentrate on the bad code, err,
>your personal style of writing test code, but to draw your attention to
>the fact that there was so much of it. When you write to a forum such as
>this, requesting for help, do concider trimming the code to a very very
>short piece where the problem is shown. If you post several hundreds of
>lines of code, who's gonna start reading it all? Most just take a
>glimpse at it and think "spaghetti! " and ignore it. Had you isolated the
>problem to less than 20 lines, people might've actually paid attention
>to it and been able to help you with it. You see, people in c.l.php have
>the patience of an adhd child high on sugar. If the problem isn't solved
>within 10 seconds, it's ignored. If you expect a person to spend an hour
>reading your entire code and parsing it in their head, you wont get any
>help and have to solve the problem by yourself.
>>
>I'm sure you have your own style of coding and after reading your
>explanation you've convinced me that you may not actually be entirely
>rookie in coding. The difficlty seems to be that you've not yet grasped
>the fine skill of posting a question to usenet. I wouldn't want to think
>that this was all waste of both of our time, so I'll try to learn the
>lesson here and not judge people and their code so harshly, if you'll
>consider sending shorter piece of sample code the next time you post,
>agreed? :)
>>
>A final word on refusing to use loops is an educating story on Worse
>Than Failure (formerly known as The Daily WTF) that you might want to
>read:http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles...ur_Digits.aspx
>>
>--
>Rami.Elo...@gm ail.com
>>
>"Wikipedia on vähän niinq internetin raamattu, kukaan ei pohjimmiltaan
>usko siihen ja kukaan ei tiedä mikä pitää paikkansa." -- z00ze

>
Perhaps I was too hasty in my original reply and if so, I apologize. I
certainly don't want to take all my frustration out on one person.
Having been around programmers for a while, I have run into the "My
way is the only way" attitude. Perhaps I am too quick to pounce on
anyone who I think exhibits that behavior, even if they don't. My
apologies. I always love to learn new things.
>

IIRC I inclued a line saying: If I am wrong, then [...] The word sorry
being part of it.
I also said: from what you POSTED I got the idea [...]
I still think there's nothing insulting about my reply btw, and I can
assure you it was written with best intent.
I can live with your sarcasm, I hope you understand nonetheless
_APPARANTLY_ your post triggered a few responses you had not expected.

Most people here seriously try to help out if they can. And sometimes
they fail at giving the response someone was hoping for. Fact of usenet
life. Getting a storm in return also seems to be one. C'est la vie!

Sh.