Hi all,

I apologize in advance if this is a duplicate posting, but I believe that
postings sent to comp.sys.hp.mpe do *not* get automatically mirrored to our
3000-L list.  If that is true then many of you have not seen this and I
think that many of you will care to reply.  So here goes...

Jeff Vance, CSY

--- Forwarded mail from Cas Caswell <[log in to unmask]>

@ From: [log in to unmask] (Cas Caswell)
@ Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp.mpe
@ Subject: Posix Man pages--- comments??
@ Date: 3 Feb 1997 22:43:33 GMT
@
@ RFC Posix Man Pages
@
@  I'm investigating making some changes to the man pages provided with the
@ Posix Shell, for a project I'm working on.  I have hazy recollections of some
@ dissatisfaction with the quality of the man pages and figured I'd try to
@ characterize the issue.  Therefore, I'm writing the list looking for some
@ feedback on what y'all think of the man pages provided with the Posix Shell.
@
@  While I can use general comments such as "the pages are marvelous" or "they
@ stink", to get a general sense of overall satisfaction, I can't very well use
@ them to point out what areas that need to be corrected.  I'd be very
@ interested in knowing specifics about what is right or wrong with what is
@ currently available.
@
@ Samples of what I'm looking for:
@
@ Foo: the man page for Foo is misleading. It does not document that fact
@ that MPE Posix implementation requires Foo to be in a priv mode group
@ rather than the HFS name space.
@
@ Foo: a truly sublime piece of documentation. It clearly documents the MPE
@ POSIX behavior, has no spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors. Use this
@ as an example for all Learning Products engineers to emulate.
@
@ Foo: the man page for foo refers the reader to look at pages for Bar and
@ Junk. Neither Bar nor Junk have man page entries.
@
@  I'm happy to take feedback either on the list or via e-mail
@ ([log in to unmask]) but to keep it manageable I'm going to use information I
@ receive through the 11th of February.
@
@  While this probably goes without saying, I do want to explicitly state
@ that I'm investigating the situation. I can not commit to changing it.
@
@  Thanks for your time.
@
@  cas caswell
@
@ --
@ =======================================================================
@ [log in to unmask] (Cas Caswell)   By the way: I said it, not my company.
@ ========================================================================

--