In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
06/23/2005
at 11:31 AM, Tom Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>I assure you that the compiler writers find the messages totally
>>informative.
>For most of them that is true.
Well, yes, but the compiler writers should not be the target audience.
I assure you that programmers who are not compiler writers do not find
the messages totally informative.
>Our challenge was what do you add to that in a messages manual?
Talk to the PL/I folks; their messages are more helpful than yours,
but they still manage to find useful things to say in their messages
manuals.
>All you can say is "See the LRM for how to code that statement".
No, that is not all that you can say, at least not for the messages
that I have seen.
>but 90% of entries would say "See the LRM"
Then you need to put your tech writers in touch with people actually
trying to use the compiler and ask them what they understand from the
messages. Don't be surprised if different programmers have different
interpretations.
>Anyway, the DBCS messages look like a good candidate for needing a
>messages manual, or at least a message update.
Also a good candidate for revising the message contents.
Back in the COBOL (E) days there was an excuse for skimpy error
messages; with current DASD costs there is no reason not to have,
e.g., multi-level messages, more variables plugged into the message
text. There was never an excuse to claim that messages were self
documenting; it wasn't true in OS/360 and it isn't true now.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
