TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: errored out, or erred out? From:Mailing List <mlist -at- ca -dot- rainbow -dot- com> To:"'kcronin -at- daleen -dot- com'" <kcronin -at- daleen -dot- com>, TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:59:05 -0500
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kcronin -at- daleen -dot- com [mailto:kcronin -at- daleen -dot- com]
> To clarify: I need to pick one or the other. Several people
> have written
> me offlist with workarounds, but this term reflects how users of this
> particular technology speak, so I want to capture this
> specific phrase in
> writing.
Well, what I've seen suggests "errored out" and not "erred out".
The process has probably not erred. It has encountered somebody
else's error and crapped out, tossing an error message as it
shut down, yes? Most programmer types and database geeks would
say that it "errored out". That would contrast with, say, an
uninformative crash.
Editorial types would cringe at the grammatical vileness, but
the practical ones would probably accept it as "vernacular"
for the industry.
