Searching \ for '[OT]: Proper tagging, was: I say it is spinach and' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/io/serial/spis.htm?key=spi
Search entire site for: 'Proper tagging, was: I say it is spinach and'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Proper tagging, was: I say it is spinach and'
2005\08\16@080540 by olin piclist

face picon face
John Nall wrote:
> Funny how my post started out as [OT[, then to nothing, then to [PIC],
> then back to [OT] again.

This is an example of a problem that seems trivial but I think causes a lot
of other problems.  People seem to think that it's OK to put anything on
[OT], even when it fits within the definition of [PIC], [EE], or some other
tag.  I think this is just as bad as the reverse.  It makes people (like me)
feel they should subscribe to [OT] to catch the relatively large number of
mistagged posts.  However since we're not really interested in [OT], we
gripe about the slightest abuse we can justify.  If all posts were properly
tagged, guys like me would be happy to unsubscribe to [OT] and there'd be a
lot less complaining about Russell's excesses or other drivell on [OT].

> What does it all mean???

I didn't notice how your original post was tagged, but some people probably
tried to correct the tag and others didn't notice.  Therefore some are not
tagged [OT] and some [PIC].  Since they otherwise appear to be the same
thread, it gives the impression that the tag is bouncing around.

> Is this some sort of
> vast right-wing conspiracy, just because I voted for Kerry???  :-)

So you were the one!


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\08\16@083911 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> ... Russell's excesses or other drivell on [OT]. ..


I resemble that :-)

       RM

2005\08\16@085747 by Chen Xiao Fan

face
flavicon
face
I totally agree with you. These days there are too many [OT] tags
which fit within the definition of [PIC], [EE].

The only solution to this right now is to read the full version of
the posts using PICLIST.com or GMANE if you do not want to subscribe
to [OT]. I still do not want to subscribe to [OT] so that I choose
to use this alternative solution.

Maybe we need to add an [ADMIN] tag so that James will come out
and educate the people how to use a proper tag.

Regards,
Xiaofan

{Original Message removed}

2005\08\16@092342 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Maybe we need to add an [ADMIN] tag so that James will come out
> and educate the people how to use a proper tag.

An [ADMIN] tag already exists.
It is only for use by, no surprise, admins.
James has indeed used it on a number of occasions to advise people on
correct tag use.
Many ignore the advice.
People even argue against the advice ;-).

FWIW, I consider that I very seldom use the tags wrongly, except
perhaps occasionally by accident. This doesn't stop people complaining
that my tags are wrong. This is quite apart from complaints about
content :-).


       RM






2005\08\16@093434 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


{Quote hidden}

Perhaps a [COMPLAINT] tag is required ;-)

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2005\08\16@101011 by John Nall

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:

> > This is an example of a problem that seems trivial but I think
> causes a lot
> of other problems.  People seem to think that it's OK to put anything on
> [OT], even when it fits within the definition of [PIC], [EE], or some
> other
> tag.

I'm sure you are correct, but it was not clear to me that the original
posting should have been a [PIC] posting.  I try very hard to adhere to
the guidelines, which say:

[PIC] Should be at the start of the subject line for most postings
to the PICList. This says that a PIC microcontroller (or clone) is
directly involved, connected or the entire subject of your post. Any
person who works with PICs would want to read it...

Now, my posting dealt entirely with the C language -- not with the PIC
microcontroller.  I suppose there is a PIC "connection," but it would be
very tenuous.  That said, however, I'll try and do better next time and
use the [PIC] label if there is any connection whatsoever

John

2005\08\16@103414 by Chen Xiaofan

picon face
I think [EE] is the proper tag here since it
becomes a compiler debate.

[EE] can stand for "everything engineering".
Therefore anything related to engineering can
be put to [EE] tag, including hardware, software,
electrical engineering, mechanical engineering,
etc.

[PIC] tag is more constained to PIC related stuff.
My guidline is now is that I use [EE] if I am
not so sure whether [PIC] is approriate.

Regards,
Xiaofan


{Original Message removed}

2005\08\16@124245 by olin piclist

face picon face
John Nall wrote:
> Now, my posting dealt entirely with the C language -- not with the PIC
> microcontroller.

Actually you were discussing C30 in particular, which is the Microchip C
compiler for dsPICs.  That's why I thought [PIC] would have been
appropriate.

In any case it was technical, and can't see how it at least shouldn't have
been [EE].

Maybe James could offer an opinion so that we all have a better idea of the
correct tag usage?


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\08\16@130534 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 12:42 PM 8/16/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>John Nall wrote:
>>Now, my posting dealt entirely with the C language -- not with the PIC
>>microcontroller.
>
>Actually you were discussing C30 in particular, which is the Microchip C
>compiler for dsPICs.  That's why I thought [PIC] would have been
>appropriate.
>
>In any case it was technical, and can't see how it at least shouldn't have
>been [EE].

One could also classify it under "religion", in which case [OT] would
be the most appropriate tag.

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
.....speffKILLspamspam@spam@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
->> Inexpensive test equipment & parts http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZspeff


2005\08\16@153624 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
My official reply on this is:

"What Xiaofan said."

Or maybe this will help:

[PIC] is for things that use a PIC
[SX] is for things that use an SX
[AVR] is for things that use an AVR

[EE] is Everything related to Engineering

[OT] is for Russell and other people who just have to chat.

[AD] is for selling
[BUY] is for buying

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
jamesnewtonspamKILLspampiclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com


> {Original Message removed}

2005\08\16@153942 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
If it had been only about C compilers for the PIC, then [PIC]. Since it was
about C compilers in general (with some reference to a PIC C compiler) then
[EE] was the correct choice.

I don't think that going [OT] with this was any where near as bad as going
[PIC] with e.g. "check out the cool picture of ice on mars"

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
.....jamesnewtonKILLspamspam.....piclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com





> {Original Message removed}

2005\08\16@154124 by James Newton, Host

face picon face
> One could also classify it under "religion", in which case
> [OT] would be the most appropriate tag.

ROLF!

Actually, when it gets to Religion, I'm honor bound to kill the thread so no
tag is acceptable in that case.

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
EraseMEjamesnewtonspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTpiclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com



2005\08\16@162027 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Aug 16, 2005, at 7:09 AM, John Nall wrote:

> my posting dealt entirely with the C language --
>   not with the PIC microcontroller.

As one of the people who added a PIC tag, I interpreted your
original as being mostly about microchip's C30, and therefore
definitely [PIC]  (OTOH, I added the PIC tag when replying to
a message that didn't have any tag...)

BillW

2005\08\16@163205 by Peter

picon face

> Perhaps a [COMPLAINT] tag is required ;-)

[RANT] is easier to spill

Peter

2005\08\16@174853 by John Nall

picon face
William Chops Westfield wrote:

> > As one of the people who added a PIC tag, I interpreted your
> original as being mostly about microchip's C30, and therefore
> definitely [PIC]  (

Well, gosh, I thought that I was not going to say anything else on this
thread, but guess I kind of have to just say a few more words.  The
original post referred to the C30 compiler, that is correct, but not in
reference to PIC's.  It was strictly in reference to the relationship
that the C30 compiler has to a true C compiler.  So based upon comments
by different people, chief among them being James Newton, if I had it to
do all over again I would have made it [EE], which is now where I think
it should have gone

And by the way, I enjoyed the discussion.  The flaming was bearable,
with only minor singes.  :-)  I stand corrected and realize that no one
ever said the C30 compiler was a true C compiler, so my complaining
about it was wrong.  (HOWEVER, just as a departing rant, let me say that
there are, or have been, or will be, people who had a C course in
college, get into doing PIC programming as a hobby thing, and assume
that they are well prepared to start programming the little buggers
since they know C.  I say "hobby thing" because while the beginning
professionals might think that, supervisors know better).

John

John

2005\08\16@190643 by Richard Prosser

picon face
".  I say "hobby thing" because while the beginning
professionals might think that, supervisors know better).
"

Yeah, right !

RP

On 17/08/05, John Nall <jwnallspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2005\08\16@213139 by John Nall

picon face
Richard Prosser wrote:

>".  I say "hobby thing" because while the beginning
>professionals might think that, supervisors know better).
>"
>
>Yeah, right !
>  
>
And just what, pray tell, does that cryptic comment mean????

John

2005\08\16@220137 by Richard Prosser

picon face
That I have experience of supervisors that wouldn't know .........
RP

On 17/08/05, John Nall <@spam@jwnallKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2005\08\16@221355 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>>".  I say "hobby thing" because while the beginning
>>professionals might think that, supervisors know better).
>>"

>>Yeah, right !

> And just what, pray tell, does that cryptic comment mean????

If I may read his mind, he meant that even the supervisors fall into
the trap of thinking that knowing C qualifies you to program PICs.



       RM

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...