Re: Typos in the manual

[Mark Harig <idirectscm@aim.com>]

Some of the discussion below was getting too far off-topic from the
question of whether to follow "i.e." and "e.g." with commas in all
instances or not to follow "i.e." and "e.g." with commas in any 
instance,
so I have written a response in a separate message.

>
> >>
> >> > Both "i.e." and "e.g." should always be followed by a comma.
> >>
> >> Well.  Let me tell you.  I've written those kinds of patches 
before,
> >> adding a comma unconditionally and all.  After a few maintainers of
> >> some packages rejected them, I've become less enthused.
> >>
> >
> > 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?
>

Unfortunately, this answer does not resolve the mystery for me.

1) Both computer and natural languages evolve (How else would we
explain, e.g., C90 and C99, among many examples?)

2) Don't confuse the expressiveness and flexibility of natural languages
with a lack of standards.

Standard, written usage of natural language, as opposed to constantly
changing spoken slang, does not evolve very rapidly.  We can read
"The Great Gatsby" without any need to refer to a grammar reference,
despite it's being  written nearly a century ago, not to mention, say, 
Dickens.
Verbs are still verbs, nouns are nouns, sentences still have main and
subordinate clauses, etc.  But I cannot read much of Chaucer without
some translating reference.  Perhaps this is because there were no
dictionaries or grammar references then?

3) Computer language specifications do not say anything about idioms,
and yet programmers consider idioms to be significant.  How can that
be when they are not in the specification?

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.

5) Your rhetorical question points out some differences between computer
languages and natural languages while ignoring the quite significant
similarities between them, which for me is the point of the mystery.
(Why do they miss the large similarities but see the small differences?)

> > Reference manuals should strive to follow grammar and usage rules as
> > much as possible in a jargon-filled context.  There is enough room
> > already for confusion and lack of precision.
>
> But surely you don't believe that there is a One True set of "grammar
> and usage rules"?
>

No, I don't believe there is.  But I think this question is a
red-herring.  The reverse red-herring question would be "But surely
you don't believe that there are no grammar and usage rules?"

--