Conference thebay::joyoflex

    
    How about:
    
    "CDD/Plus deletes thet target element and any descendant that has
    no corresponding directory entry and is not the member of any othe
    relationship".
    
    If you like you could insert "belonging to it" or "of it" between
    "descendant.......that has".
    
    Paul V

    I like that.
    
    I notice that you, too, feel that 'any' is singular in this context.
    
    --bonnie

    I'd make it:
    
    "CDD/Plus deletes the target element and any descendant that has..."

    	Jon

    My rationale for .3 is this:
    
    I agree that "any" is singular, however since it means "zero or more,"
    it has a connotation of being plural. When you say "any descendants"
    you reinforce the plural connotation. By changing "any descendants" to
    "any descendant" you make the sentence carry the same meaning, but you
    no longer reinforce the connotation of more than one descendant. 
    
    	Jon

    Ah.  That does the trick.
    
    Your change also nicely reinforces the point of the next paragraph,
    which deals with something that happens to *all* descendants. 
    
    --bonnie

    Can I add something please?
    
    Original:
    
    "CDD/Plus deletes the target element and any of its descendants
    that has no corresponding directory entry and is not the member of
    any other relationship."
    
    
    After some modification:
    
    "CDD/Plus deletes the target element and any descendant that has no
    corresponding directory entry and is not the member of any other
    relationship."
    
    
    Can I propose that "the member" be changed to "a member", giving:
    
    "CDD/Plus deletes the target element and any descendant that has no
    corresponding directory entry and is not a member of any other
    relationship."
    
    
    My reason is that surely something cannot be THE member of a
    relationship. Or can it? Must there not be something that it is
    related to? Oh, and remember that today is friday, and I think it
    sounds better with 'a' rather than 'the'.
    
    Ian.

        The way I read the text, it seems to imply that you want
        to delete ALL elements that comply with the conditions,
        so I would change "any" to "all", and make the verbs
        plural.

	Steve

    re: .6
    
    "A member" is really not quite correct because it implies there
    can be more than one member.  Relationships are one-to-one: they
    have one owner and one member.  
    
    Now, the member can own other relationships, and can be the member
    of other relationships, and the owner can own other relationships,
    and can be the member of other relationships.  (And in some cases
    relationships can own relationships, or belong to relationships...) 
    But there will never be more than the member of a particular
    relationship.
    
    Because of the one-on-one nature of these relationships (such a
    cozy project we have here . . . ), I don't like the connotations
    of making everything plural.
    
    --bonnie 

    No additions or suggestions - but I thought I'd take up Bonnie's ps. 

    When I worked in commercial book publishing, I edited books. I came to
    think of a book as a particular physical thing with particular
    characteristics (including, for example, the smell of a new book as you
    riffle the pages for the first time). Fancifully, I sometimes refer to
    the things I no longer work with as `real books'. The shrink-wrapped,
    Chinese-Red-bound devo-fodder regurgitated by SDC certainly aren't the
    same sort of things. 

    But that doesn't mean SDC doesn't handle books. To suggest that a book
    in a ring-binder isn't as much a book as a traditionally bound book is
    similar to arguing that a photo-typeset book is less a book than one
    that used some earlier means of composition; or that paperbacks aren't
    books because they aren't cloth-bound; or that cloth-bound books, when
    they were introduced, weren't books because they weren't bound in
    leather (hide-bound). True, a traditional book - in its final form - is
    one object, while the pages of a loose-leaf book are loose. But many
    books are published by traditional book publishers in loose-leaf form.
    I can't imagine a definition of `book' that rules out the sort of
    manual or guide supplied with DEC kit. 

    I think your editors' confusion arises from the ubiquitous word
    `documentation'.  I've got nothing against the word if it's used
    meaningfully.  But too often in this industry `documentation' is a
    shorthand form of `someone else's problem, and only Priority 4 or 5 at
    that - so not worth worrying about until well into Field Test'. The
    word `book', having only four letters, is too uncomfortable - it makes
    people think about what a customer is going to get in the way of
    documentation. 

    When I write a book I call it a book.  This can lead to
    misunderstandings; but I know it can, so I watch carefully for the
    signs and try to get my listeners to make allowances for just another
    documentation weirdo. 

    b

    re: .9
    
    I wouldn't describe my editors' reaction to my use of "book" as
    confusion.  "Hostility" would be more like it.

    They insist that I'm writing a manual, not a book.  
    
    Many writers seem to think that way, too, and it seems to have
    something to do with the fact that we didn't choose the topic
    we're writing about.  We write what the company needs, we don't
    even get our names on it, and that means it's not a 'book', which
    has an author's name on it. 
    
    And by considering it not a book, it appears we can judge it by a
    different set of standards than if we were writing a 'real book'. 

    I wonder if writers would feel differently if our names were on
    the book, so we could have people come up at DECUS and say, "I
    read your book about forms products.  You know, that really
    sucked.  Especially the examples." 
    
    --bonnie

    I think it would be a nice for writers to get to have their names on
    their books. Engineers get their names on their code (and have people
    at DECUS ask, "why *ever* did you do mumble that way?"). Is there
    some reason this isn't done?
    
    	Jon

    I have read some Ultrix manuals which give names of authors, which
    tell you who wrote (but I can't remember) such gems as:
    
    "Now that you have this information it would be nice to be able
    to use it�.
     .
     .
     .
    
    � Unless of course you have the social life of a cumquat, in which
    case just *having* the information is enough."
    
    This is in the Make manual, isn't it? Perhaps these are credited
    because they are articles by people cobbled together as a manual,
    rather than articles written specifically for manuals.
    
    
    Ian.

    Re .11:
    
    Do they? Over here (in Reading) one of the last things engineers
    do before Field Test is strip their names out of the code.  Of
    course, within a development group, people know who did what.
    
    As to reasons why books aren't credited (and/or debited) to 
    particular writers, I imagine some arguments might mention
    copyright and contracts of employment; they're not arguments
    I'd agree with though.
    
    b

>    "Now that you have this information it would be nice to be able
>    to use it�.
>     .
>     .
>     .
>    
>    � Unless of course you have the social life of a cumquat, in which
>    case just *having* the information is enough."
    
My type of manual! I hate stuffy formal ones. If I can get away with it...
suddenly remembers who reads this file (Hi, Steve!).... This sort of footnote
is totally unacceptable in a work-related guide. Not a mention of gerbils
anywhere... Tssk.

A Deranged Tech Writer somewhere in a cupboard
Valbonne

    If I put a sentence like that in one of my manuals and an editor
    or supervisor saw it, I'd get yelled at.  
    
    If it got out to a customer, it would most likely be mentioned in
    my next job review.  
    
    --bonnie, who is just as deranged but likes the money

    I wrote the original DEC-10/20 Algol 60 manual. I note that the
    current version contains most of my original text, including
    
        WRITE("THE MOON IS MADE OF GREEN CHEESE");
    
    BTW, I'm an engineer, not a writer (but then when we first became
    known as software engineers instead of programmers, the technical
    authors wanted to be called writing engineers. But they backed down
    when we threatened to call them scribbling engineers :-)).

Re: 12 et seq.

First, the person who wrote the text quoted has the brain of a gerbil.  
The word is `kumquat' not `cumquat'.  Be that as it may, the surmise 
that this text appears in a non-DIGITAL book that was anthologized into 
our documents is correct.  Much of the ULTRIX� supplementary 
documentation is merely articles written by various and sundry engineers 
who have worked on the UNIX� system at places such as Berkeley.  Any 
frivolity like that in a DIGITAL-written ULTRIX manual wouldn't make it
past the first editing.  Too bad. 

I used to have my fun by burying comments I considered amusing in the 
source code for the controller firmware I wrote.  This was in a previous 
life at another company, and source code for controller ROMs was 
included in technical manuals.  At that same company, the OS manual went 
out with a glossary that included some 30 or 40 definitions like these:

	Adder:  a variety of snake.

	Code:  a respiratory ailment.

	Exclusive OR:  a high-class Cockney businesswoman.

	Half adder:  a seriously wounded snake.

	Node:  where you get a code.

This glossary had been supplied as camera-ready art by the engineering 
group; when the pubs people learned about the jokes, some 250 customers 
already had copies of it.  The pubs people sent out apologetic letters 
requesting a return so they could replace the offending glossaries.  The 
customers generally replied to the effect that they'd keep what they 
had, thanks very much -- it was the first time their operators and 
programmers had actually *read* a glossary.

Certain DIGITAL programs have a fairly high amusement quotient.  
DATATRIEVE, for example, has in its HELP topics the term "wombat" -- 
you can get both basic and advanced help on wombats.  You can even print 
out a picture of a wombat.

To digress for a moment to the original topic of this note, I agree that 
the reconstructions as discussed are probably better than the original.  
However, the Oxford American Dictionary defines `any' this way:

	any ('en-ee) adj.  1. One or some (but no matter which) from 
	three or more or from a quantity.  2. Every, whichever you 
	choose...

I've always considered it a word that is either singular or plural, as 
required in context.

- Dick

---------------

�   ULTRIX is a trademark of Digital Equipment Corporation.  It should not
    be misused by writing it as "Ultrix".

�   UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T.

    I recall that the TOPS-10 documentation set had a footnote at
    one mention of DDT (Dynamic Debugging Technique) that said
    something about how it was the most effective way to get rid of
    bugs.
    
    --- jerry

    
    DDT is a bonafide Digital debugger. I have used in on a DECsystem20
    running under TOPS-20. 
    Yes there are still some DEC20s knocking around. My polytechnic
    has one....
    
    Paul V

    My point was that whoever it was that wrote DDT and coined the
    name was making a joke, and that it was pointed out in the
    documentation set.
    
    I dunno. Maybe you guys on the right side of ocean never used
    Dicloro Diphenyl Tricloroethane as an insecticide.
    
    --- jerry

Thanks for the wombat tip....

Why should documentation not contain humour? I have two books on PASCAL at
home. One is a dry text that was halfread once and never looked at again.
The other is the "Fear and Loathing Guide to Pascal" by a certain Mr Moss.
In this, he digresses onto what his dog thinks and various tips for living
a better life. He also includes discussions about his girlfriend. The whole
book is very readable and you *do* learn things about the PASCAL language,
which is the intent of the book after all.

Most programmers are deranged (as are Tech Writers) so why not cater to
them?

Shall we start another topic on this?

Gavin

    Not only can you get HELP on wombats in DATATRIEVE, you can . . .
    well, type PLOT WOMBAT at the prompt and see what you get.
    
    Why should we start a new note for humor in documentation? We've
    already taken over this one!
    
    --bonnie, the revolutionary 

>    Not only can you get HELP on wombats in DATATRIEVE, you can . . .
>    well, type PLOT WOMBAT at the prompt and see what you get.
    
You are responsible for five minutes of mirth! I loved the advanced help...

Unfortunately, PLOT WOMBAT produces a message to the effect that there is
no wombat in the dictionary. Pity.

Gavin

    What????  You mean they've taken it OUT!!???!?!?!?!?
    
    My God, is nothing sacred?
    
    --bonnie

        I believe the wombat plot is optional.  It's pretty good, though,
        but comes out in a disgusting color on a PRO, due to the PRO's
        funny way of interpreting ReGIS.
        
        Tom

    
    re.20
    
    I know that DDT was an insecticide so I did understand the joke.
    In fact the first time I encountered DDT as a debugger I was quite
    amused.....
    
    Paul V

   In the matter of plotting wombats:
    
    After I recovered from the shock, I realized there is probably a
    simple solution to your problem:  did you type SET PLOT before you
    tried to PLOT WOMBAT?  No Datatrieve plot will work before you set
    plot. 
    
    (And that information should provide plenty of fuel for the
    fertile imaginations of this file's prime punsters...)
    
    --bonnie

    When I was a customer, we purchased (1979) Plot55, which was a Macro
    library to do graphics on the <^G>ing VT55. The source was commented
    from 1st to penultimate line with some children's classic (Winnie the
    Pooh?), the last one reading
    	.END			;   (to be continued...)
    Can't remember who wrote that.
    
    John.

I don't have the manual now, but I remember the reference to the insecticide in
the TOPS-10 DDT manual. It went something like this:

DDT (Dynamic Debugging Technique)* is [description of debugger]

*Not to be confused with DichloroDifluoroTriwhatever [I don't remeber the 
chemical name] which is used on a different, and mutually exclusive, class of
bugs.

(I guess whoever wrote that doesn't know that the original bug was a moth,
found inside an old relay machine by Grace Hopper, and taped into the log
book for that machine.)

     If the spelling is correct.

     I think it is still used today as a solvent and cleaner... or was up
     until recently.

             Mike

    	Trichloro-ethylene is a liquid quite unrelated to DDT. I used it as
    a cleaner when I worked in a factory that was putting bronze
    electroplating on steel pit props so they would not rust underground,
    and I knew someone who drank some, but he was brain damaged even before
    that.

       Trichloro-ethylene was also used as an anaesthetic, until it was 
       discovered that in humid conditions, like in the lungs, it 
       decomposed to form hydrochloric acid.

    Re: .29
    
    Alan Kotok wrote the PDP-1 DDT.  I wrote the PDP-6/TOPS-10 DDT.  The
    precursor to both was FLIT on the TX0 at MIT.  (Alan probably knows who
    wrote that.)
    
    I'm responsible for that insecticide line, and I fought to keep it in
    the manual when DEC tech pubs wanted to remove it as "not
    professional".  I knew the Grace Hopper-Harvard Mark I relay story, but
    the two classes of bugs were mutually exclusive after relays were no
    longer used in computers, and that includes the TX0 with FLIT.
    
    BTW, DDT = (ClC6H4)2CHCCl3 = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane