DDoc and @comments

[John Reimer]

Jesse Phillips wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:18:16 +1100, Derek Parnell wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:23:21 -0500, Ty Tower wrote:
>>
>>> Read again and you will see I understand all the comments but re-read
>>> the original post. It is intended to point out that there is a
>>> correction needed there when someone gets around to doing it becaulse
>>> DDoc does not produce accurate output in this regard
>> Dear Mr Tower,
>> thank you for your kind interest in this subject. As you so rightfully
>> pointed out there does need to be some corrections made, but as it
>> happens to turn out, the correction must be applied to the documentation
>> text and not DDoc itself. The current documentation, as was mentioned by
>> others, is a legacy of the application being ported, and has not yet
>> undergone conversion to the DDoc format. We apologize for this
>> inconvenience and have noted it to be fixed as the earliest appropriate
>> opportunity.
>>
>> With respect, we reluctantly point out that DDoc is in fact producing
>> correct output, given the input it has.
>>
>> And by the way, all this was politely said to you before, only four
>> hours after your initial post, by Mr Paul Findlay, so we are a little
>> perplexed about your assertion that "I understand all the comments".
>>
>> Thank for you again for your interest.
>>
>> ==== MESSAGE ENDS ====
> 
> Derek,
> I am sorry to say that reason does not work. If you wish there are a 
> great many attempts in the digtialmars.dwt group, and thus I am only 
> feeling sorry for those that attempt polite corrections to towers 
> statements.


Er... you did notice that Derek's response was tongue-in-cheek?

Derek managed to catch the nature of this whole situation perfectly with 
his company-complaints-department response.  Perhaps, with this letter, 
Derek has saved our product from catastrophic failure?

I don't know what we'd do without all the profits coming in, so tip of 
the hat to you, Derek. ;)

-JJR