From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <xconq7-return-3417-listarch-xconq7=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 32150 invoked by alias); 28 May 2004 16:46:43 -0000
Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:xconq7-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/xconq7/>
List-Post: <mailto:xconq7@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 32133 invoked from network); 28 May 2004 16:46:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ob2.cmich.edu) (141.209.20.21)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 28 May 2004 16:46:42 -0000
Received: from egate1.central.cmich.local ([141.209.15.85])
	by ob2.cmich.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i4SGieP6028349;
	Fri, 28 May 2004 12:44:40 -0400
Received: from leon.phy.cmich.edu ([141.209.165.20]) by egate1.central.cmich.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713);
	 Fri, 28 May 2004 12:46:43 -0400
Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1])
	by leon.phy.cmich.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C9D7B70022; Fri, 28 May 2004 12:46:44 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 16:46:00 -0000
From: Eric McDonald <mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu>
To: Jim Kingdon <kingdon@panix.com>
Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: does the tutorial lie?
In-Reply-To: <200405280645.i4S6jKr07313@panix5.panix.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0405281237180.25795-100000@leon.phy.cmich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 May 2004 16:46:43.0904 (UTC) FILETIME=[5B9D4C00:01C444D3]
X-CanItPRO-Stream: default
X-Spam-Score: -0.9 () 
X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001
X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca)
X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00432.txt.bz2

On Fri, 28 May 2004, Jim Kingdon wrote:

> I suppose some kind of disclaimer would be OK, although of course it
> might just lead to general doubt and uncertainty rather than critical
> reading.

That is why I posed it as a question rather than a possible 
solution. ;-)

> I'd like to see us do at least *something* about inaccuracies as we
> notice them.  

I absolutely agree. Presently, I am running a bit behind because 
of other obligations and things that I considered to be higher 
priority wrt Xconq. But, in the past, I think you know that I 
generally patch the docs as I encounter the flaws....

There was a missing 'create-range' entry reported several weeks 
ago, IIRC, and I still I haven't looked into that one. I don't 
think a patch was supplied for it.

Eric