Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttrdc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: Re: crontab: Sunday=7, not 0. Message-ID: <535@ttrdc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 28-Oct-85 20:23:08 EST Article-I.D.: ttrdc.535 Posted: Mon Oct 28 20:23:08 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 30-Oct-85 04:37:57 EST References: <704@adobe.UUCP> <187@l5.uucp> <491@ttidcb.UUCP> <2935@sun.uucp> Organization: AT&T, Computer Systems Division, Skokie, IL Lines: 19 In article <2935@sun.uucp>, guy@sun.uucp (Guy Harris) writes: >They should have known better - if UNIX >code and UNIX documentation disagree, 99 times out of 100 (if not more >often), the documentation is wrong. > Guy Harris Rhetorical question: how is "wrong" defined. Does the documentation being "wrong" mean that the way the code is different from the way it is implemen- ted is on purpose? That is, there has to be something that shows that the code was designed that way on purpose to prove that the documentation is "wrong." Of course since the code function is usually documented after it is written :-) then if the documentation and code differ then the documentation is ipso facto, "wrong." -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy