Date:         Fri, 9 Jun 2000 16:51:46 -0400
Reply-To:     "Willis, James" <James.Willis@BCBSFL.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         "Willis, James" <James.Willis@BCBSFL.COM>
Subject:      Re: Suggestion: Offer a reward for finding errors in documentatio
              n
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

To requote what was so eloquently said:

        Did you ever see a house fly?

Spell checkers would not see the error.

> ----------
> From:         Michael S Hines[SMTP:mshines@PURDUE.EDU]
> Reply To:     Michael S Hines
> Sent:         Friday, June 09, 2000 4:05 PM
> To:   SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject:      Re: Suggestion: Offer a reward for finding errors in
> documentation
>
> Personal observation - reading is becoming a lost art, and proof reading
> an
> even more lost art.
>
> proof - the newspapers, SAS Documentation, ...
>
> A wise old sage once said - "There is no difference between a person who
> cannot read, and one who does not". (or something like that).
>
> proof - all the "read the fine manuals" comments here (or maybe not so
> fine
> now?)....
>
> M Hines
> mshines@purdue.edu
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]On Behalf Of Jack
> Hamilton
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 1:02 PM
> To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
> Subject: Suggestion: Offer a reward for finding errors in documentation
>
>
> SAS Institute should follow Donald Knuth's practice of awarding
> $2.56 to the first discoverer of an error in one of his books.
>
> See <http://Sunburn.Stanford.EDU/~knuth/taocp.html>:
>
>    Rewards
>
>    The first finder of any error in my books receives $2.56;
>    significant suggestions are also worth $0.32 each.  At present
>    the books are almost brand new, so your chances of finding a
>    previously unreported error today are much better than they
>    will be a month from now.  Indeed, if you are really a careful
>    reader, you may be able to recoup more than the cost of the
>    books this way.
>
>
>
> "John Iwaniszek" <jiwaniszek@NC.RR.COM> wrote:
>
> >Has anyone else noticed a large number of missleading and incorrect
> >information in the V8 online docs?  For example, in the entry about Proc
> >Printto, the NEW option syntax is listed as NEW='filename', not NEW
> >FILE='filename' or NEW PRINT='filename', etc.
> >
> >Granted I am still using 612 but I would not expect the syntax to change
> >this radically.  Of course, they could have left the old functionality
> >alone and added the NEW= option.
>
>
>
> --
> JackHamilton@FirstHealth.com
> Development Manager, Technical Group
> METRICS Department, First Health
> West Sacramento, California USA
>
>


Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., and its subsidiary and
affiliate companies are not responsible for errors or omissions in this e-mail message. Any personal comments made in this e-mail do not reflect the views of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.