Simon Coulter wrote:
On 24/06/2008, at 7:58 AM, CRPence wrote:
<<SNIP>>
Word the /problem/ as a documentation issue for a
>> link in the docs, and report it via the electronic Reader
Comment from InfoCenter. That process requires that they
reply to you <<SNIP>>
I have difficulty wording this problem as a "documentation" error
because as far as I can tell the documentation is correct. The
problem is that Rexx doesn't behave properly in certain specific
circumstances. I guess it could be worded as an omission in the
documentation i.e., Rexx documentation fails to state that calling an
external function with omitted parameters when a External Function
Exit Program is defined will fail with Error 48.
I'm sure anyone can see that adding such a statement to the Rexx
documentation would not be the correct solution to the problem and I
don't want to suggest a "fix it in the docs" solution.
Admittedly a silly approach. But a path I had used in the past, for
different reasons. One can hope that the reviewer of the comment will
infer\learn\understand that the problem is really with the code, not
with the docs; hopefully conferring with the code developers to further
their understanding. The /comment/ could even very directly imply a
suspicion that it is a code problem rather than a doc issue. The key
point being, that the /comment/ path to contact IBM requires a response,
according to their process. At that point you have a means to
communicate further, with hopes of getting the problem redirected to
developers. Regardless....
Also, if you send me an email, I can forward the details to
[someone who I know that can forward it to] the proper contact.
I'll send you a save file with code to reproduce the problem and
instructions on how to prove the defect. Do you want that sent to
your yahoo address?
That works for me.... it is my only address these days.
Regards, Chuck
