Christof..

I don't think the issue deals with errata. I think it is a foregone conclusion that at one time or another, there will be misspellings, bad descriptons, and other PRODUCTION RELATED problems.

However, the issue that George brings up is yet another example of the lackluster tecnical editorial performance of FPA. Spin it anyway you like, chances are, the person who ran the code did it on something other than NT. In other words, the person charged with the responsibility of testing the code FAILED TO HIS/HER JOB.

With this in mind, you cannot lump in the sub-par work of Miriam Liskin as production related problems. Again, the technical editorial function completely broke down.

I suspect you are trying to spin this in such a way as to deflect attention from the past/present FPA editorial process..



>Hi George,
>
>>In light of or more of the recent threads in this area, here's a little something from the "Advisor Tips" section of FPA.
>
>If you want to see your comment in one of the next issues, would you please send this to Advisor. Thanks.
>
>Anyway, printing wrong descriptions, wrong code, etc. is really not only a problem in FoxPro Advisor. I've seen such things in many other magazines, for example FoxTalk, Markus Egger's "Software Developer", and others. And I don't pretend that I haven't made mistakes, too. In fact, I still remember with horror how many reports I got for my Y2K article. :)
>
>Thanks for pointing this particular problem out, though.
>
>Christof
>Advisor Contributing Editor