Re: RandomComplex documentation
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg80245] Re: RandomComplex documentation
- From: Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at sbcglobal.net>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 04:26:39 -0400 (EDT)
On 8/14/07 at 7:09 AM, akoz at mimuw.edu.pl (Andrzej Kozlowski) wrote: >On 13 Aug 2007, at 10:32, Bill Rowe wrote: <snipped> >>I conclude there is simply an error in the tutorial >Hmm ... you seem to have reached as your "conclusion" what for me >was an "implicit assumption" (too obvious to bother to state). Let >me then restate myself. My real question was: is anyone going to do >anything about it? And another thing: the question was (is) >addressed only to people who are in a position to do something about >it. If the question was only intended for those who can fix errors in the documentation, why post the question here? Most posters here are clearly in no position to fix errors. And there is no reason to expect those that can to react to posts in this forum. The only way to be sure an error is on the list to be fixed by those that can would be to submit something to support at wolfram.com. >(Perhaps I will have to learn to use these silly smileys, but >unfortunately I don't know of any that indicate "irony", which >seems to be a weak point of this forum. Obviously the triple >question mark did not work as I intended) . Triple question marks are open to interpretation. There really isn't any way to indicate "irony" Short of specifically writing something like "It is ironic that...". Posts simply don't have enough bandwidth to communicate things not explicitly stated. -- To reply via email subtract one hundred and four
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Re: RandomComplex documentation
- From: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz@mimuw.edu.pl>
- Re: Re: RandomComplex documentation