petrus (12) [Avatar] Offline
On p. 5/496, the note 1 does not use consistent quoting (typographic quotes for the first quotation, simple double quotes for the second one).

On p.47/496, the title 2.2.2 should read "..implicitly-typed..."
fabrice.marguerie (224) [Avatar] Offline
Re: Typos
Thank you for the heads-up, Pierre.
BenHayat (24) [Avatar] Offline
Re: Typos
I'm finding typos, missing words and wrong grammar as well too. Unfortunately, I was too excited reading the book and didn't stop to note where these errors are.
However, you guys need to make sure you review the book before it goes out to publishing. The only thing people will say in Amazon reviews, will be about typos.
fabrice.marguerie (224) [Avatar] Offline
Re: Typos
Thanks for the advice. We are working hard to fix everything we can at the moment. We already made several improvements lately.
Please continue to report anything you guys find. It helps a lot to improve the quality of the book.
steve.eichert (22) [Avatar] Offline
Re: Typos
Where there any sections that you remember being worse regarding typos? No biggie if not, but it might help us track them down.
BenHayat (24) [Avatar] Offline
Re: Typos
>>Where there any sections that you remember being worse regarding typos? No biggie if not, but it might help us track them down. <<
I'll try to see if I can go back and find a couple. I also "think" there was a code error. However, I didn't run it, because it was a segment of a code that was being shown from C# 2.0 to 3.0. However, the code looked odd.

At this point my intention was to get a feel for the book in general and not to pick on typos.
Abacus (59) [Avatar] Offline
Re: Typos
As far as typos and other aspects of language are concerned, this book is much better than any other book I have studied on C# or ASP.NET 3.5 so far. However, since the authors and publisher seem to be keen to be notified of any imperfections in their work, here are some things that I have noticed so far:

Page 15, first point in bulleted list:
The (grammatical) subject of the sentence is "A good knowledge of the tools." So "being able" refers to this knowledge being able to do something, which, of course, is not what is meant. I would suggest saying something like "... before you can use them efficiently ..."

Page 19, last sentence of Section 1.2.3, "LINQ to the rescue":
I think it would be better to use a different verb than "seeing" here, because that is more what the reader does. "Showing you" would be a natural possibility. "Presenting" would be possible too, but may be a little too formal in comparison with the rest of the text.

Page 37, second sentence of Section 1.6, "First steps with LINQ to SQL..."
"LINQ to SQL ... applies this concept to allow developers to query relational database [sic] using the same syntax that you have seen ..."

I would put "database" in the plural and leave out "same" (as it is redundant):
"LINQ to SQL ... applies this concept to allow developers to query relational databases using the syntax that you have seen ..."

If you really want to keep "same," then I think it would be more correct to follow it with "as":
"LINQ to SQL ... applies this concept to allow developers to query relational databases using the same syntax as you have seen ..."

Page 37, last complete sentence on the page:
I think "by ourselves" would be more correct than "by ourself."

Page 38, first sentence after heading "Entity classes," at the bottom of the page:
I think "our application data" would be more consistent with the rest of the sentence than "your application data."

Page 41, first line of second bulleted list:
"Queries explicitly written SQL in quotes"
I am not sure what you mean here, but something is definitely missing.

Page 51, last paragraph but one, second sentence:
"In some cases, they're required to use LINQ features."
A nasty ambiguity, and not uncommon.
Possible solutions: "Some features of LINQ require them," or "Some features of LINQ cannot be used without them." Or, more verbose, but also more down to earth: "If you want to take advantage of some features of LINQ, you will have to use them."

Page 60, in the middle of the page. I think item #7 may be missing a semi-colon, but I'm not sure. (I have already mentioned this in another post.)

Page 62, in the list of delegates given just above the middle of the page, the last delegate but one is missing a parameter.

That's all I have noticed in the first 62 pages. Some other books have as many mistakes in two or three pages. So keep up the good work!
Abacus (59) [Avatar] Offline
Re: Typos
On page 69 (Chapter 2), I think that "Process" should be "ProcessData".

There are three places where it occurs (as far as I can tell):

The first line of the page and, twice, in the sample code after the sentence "Here is how we would have to use it ..."

Less important, but possibly of interest to perfectionists, is the grammar in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the same page:

"When a generic method is called without specifying type arguments ..."

This implies that it is the generic method that specifies type arguments. I would suggest rewriting it along the following lines:

"When you call a generic method without specifying type arguments ..."
fabrice.marguerie (224) [Avatar] Offline
Re: Typos

Thanks a lot for taking the time to post all this!
As you noticed, we worked hard to hunt down typos and imperfections, but of course we left some in the book so keen readers like you could spot them smilie

I have nothing to add about your suggestions. They are all justified and clearly expressed.
I've added everything to the errata.
I replied to your question about page 60 in the original thread.

We appreciate that you took the time to write all this down. Feel free to post more suggestions if you wish.

Abacus (59) [Avatar] Offline
Re: Typos
Thank you for your positive reaction, Fabrice. As I work through the book, I will try to keep track of anything in the language that seems capable of improvement.