[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) writes:
> On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:33:43PM -0400, G. Matthew Rice wrote:
> > There's definitely a balance here but I still don't agree with a pure 'no
> > option testing' ideology.
>
> I don't really consider certifications worth anything. Probably takes
Just for everyone's info, I invited Len to join this list. Am I a glutton
for punishment or what? :)
> > That said, don't blow this out of perspective. These types of questions
> > are getting rarer as we improve the tests overall.
>
> Which is good. Of course to some extent the policy of not discussing
> questions makes it hard to elliminate that kind of problem question. I
> realize entirely why discussing questions isn't feasible, but that
> doesn't detract from the problem it also question.
Well, have I got a treat for you :) I'm about to launch a question writing
contest (hopefully, this evening, if I can get something that looks like 303
objectives up) and I'll probably be scheduling an Item Review Meeting in
Mississauga. You are welcome to come.
> > # 1. What does this statement do?
> > bless { _h => 'Hi' }, 'Hi';
> >
> > I would argue that this question is akin a ls -lr question. The -r comes
> > from the { ... } part which does obfuscate (but not really).
>
> I can see some people never having a need for -r when using ls. I do
> use ls -lrt way too often to not know what it does, along with the ls
> -lrS of course.
That's exactly my point. If the question was just:
bless $ref, 'Hi';
I would have said it was a 'ls -l' question. '-r' is a nice option but I
wouldn't categorise it as an essential one. However, now that tac(1) is out
of the objectives, I don't know what people will do ;)
Regards,
--
g. matthew rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> starnix care, toronto, ontario, ca
phone: 647.722.5301 x242 gpg id: EF9AAD20
http://www.starnix.com professional linux services & products
_______________________________________________
lpi-examdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
