From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: Typos in the manual Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:10:28 +0000 Message-ID: <87vd0jwmff.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <20110208202529.GD16805@gmx.de> <874o88kbbs.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <8CD9B68D2F170D1-714-CAC@webmail-d099.sysops.aol.com> <20110215211443.GG24361@gmx.de> <8CD9B775B2E1E50-714-23E5@webmail-d099.sysops.aol.com> <87mxlw7s3i.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <8CD9B9D3EC85D3A-714-4D4E@webmail-d099.sysops.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1297901490 21287 80.91.229.12 (17 Feb 2011 00:11:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:11:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile@gnu.org, Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de To: Mark Harig Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 17 01:11:24 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-bugs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PprSq-0006D0-J3 for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 01:11:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47924 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PprSq-0006BV-1d for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:11:20 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=52095 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PprSl-0006BN-31 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:11:16 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PprSj-0005fX-T8 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:11:15 -0500 Original-Received: from mail3.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.33]:38691) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PprSj-0005YS-Ln for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 19:11:13 -0500 Original-Received: from arudy (unknown [78.145.19.199]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C6A21F6729; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:10:29 +0000 (GMT) Original-Received: from neil-laptop (unknown [192.168.11.4]) by arudy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9E938013; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 00:10:28 +0000 (GMT) In-Reply-To: <8CD9B9D3EC85D3A-714-4D4E@webmail-d099.sysops.aol.com> (Mark Harig's message of "Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:03:39 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4-2.6 X-Received-From: 80.84.72.33 X-BeenThere: bug-guile@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GUILE, GNU's Ubiquitous Extension Language" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.bugs:5161 Archived-At: Mark Harig writes: > Some of the discussion below was getting too far off-topic [...] Hi Mark, Your development of the argument below is interesting, and I think it could be an interesting discussion to have. In this email, though, I just wanted to mention a couple of points, one of which I think I didn't get quite right in my previous reply. >> > Something that's long been a mystery to me is why it is that > computer >> > programmers, who spend their days learning and following the rules > and >> > idioms of various programming languages, do not want to learn and >> > follow the rules and idioms of natural languages. >> >> Because computer languages are constrained by the specifications and >> tools that interpret them, whereas natural languages evolve and > diverge >> through human usage? When I read your para above before, it (strangely) didn't occur to me that it could be intended to include reference to me and the Guile manual. Hence my general reply above, about the practical constraints on computer language evolution being tighter than those on human languages. Now that that does occur to me, I see that my reply could be read as implying "yes, I am knowingly not learning and following the rules...". Just to be clear then, I didn't mean to imply that. In fact I believe that I and the Guile manual do "follow the rules and idioms of natural languages." Note in particular that this thread about "i.e.," is nothing to do with the looseness of human language constraints (i.e., the kind of thing that allows many people today to say "you was" rather than "you were"). It's to do with a convention that has forked in two standard forms of English. > 4) Programmers develop strong opinions about what is ugly or clean > in computer languages, despite the fact that this is not described in > the > language specifications. Yet, when something is pointed out as clean > or ugly in natural language, that developed sense is dismissed. When you say "dismissed", are you including this thread, and/or Guile manual discussions in general? Regards, Neil