Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcnc!gatech!udel!rochester!pt!spice.cs.cmu.edu!mjp
From: mjp@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: autodocs and other docs
Message-ID: <1211@spice.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat, 13-Jun-87 03:01:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: spice.1211
Posted: Sat Jun 13 03:01:51 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jun-87 19:09:57 EDT
Reply-To: mjp@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Portuesi)
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 31

Keywords:


mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes:

> <get the Native Developer Upgrade.  But we didn't, so since then
> <we've announced it a lot (even here).
> 
> So howcum I didn't see any of it until I bitched about it?

I saw the posts from the C-A people mentioning the autodocs here.  And
I'm far from being a developer.

> While I'm on the topic, why the feep wasn't the Doc upgrade done as
> replacement sheets for what was already there. Even IBM can get that
> right, forxsakes.

The documentation I received with my Amiga came in spiral-bound books
with a fold-up cover (the way the TeXbook is bound, but cheaper).
Replacement three-hole sheets wouldn't help me.  Nevertheless, I would
have spiral bound them anyway.  While we're on this subject, let me
flame C-A for not including an AmigaDos user's manual with the system.
I think far more people make use of the CLI than programmers needing
autodocs, so C-A's claim that most people don't need the information
is false in this case.

I do agree with Mike, though.  C-A really should give the autodocs to
Fred and generally make them more available.  What's so precious about
the autodocs as compared to the IFF specs?  Fred has those.
-- 

Mike Portuesi / Carnegie-Mellon University Computer Science Department
ARPA:	mjp@spice.cs.cmu.edu	UUCP: {backbone-site}!spice.cs.cmu.edu!mjp
BITNET:	rainwalker@drycas (a uVax-1 run by CMU Computer Club...tons o' fun)