From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mark Harig Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.bugs Subject: Re: Typos in the manual Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:03:39 -0500 Message-ID: <8CD9B9D3EC85D3A-714-4D4E@webmail-d099.sysops.aol.com> 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1297825446 11824 80.91.229.12 (16 Feb 2011 03:04:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 03:04:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bug-guile@gnu.org, Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de To: neil@ossau.uklinux.net Original-X-From: bug-guile-bounces+guile-bugs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 16 04:04:02 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 1PpXgP-0007Q2-C6 for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 04:04:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34604 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PpXgN-0008VB-VB for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:04:00 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=44839 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PpXgI-0008Uv-Ft for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:03:55 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PpXgG-0001Jt-W4 for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:03:53 -0500 Original-Received: from imr-db01.mx.aol.com ([205.188.91.95]:55861) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PpXgG-0001Jm-Tq for bug-guile@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:03:52 -0500 Original-Received: from imo-ma02.mx.aol.com (imo-ma02.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.137]) by imr-db01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p1G33odY026171; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:03:50 -0500 Original-Received: from idirectscm@aim.com by imo-ma02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id 8.e53.d51b203 (37231); Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:03:47 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from smtprly-me01.mx.aol.com (smtprly-me01.mx.aol.com [64.12.95.102]) by cia-ma06.mx.aol.com (v129.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMA068-b2b44d5b3e8b334; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:03:47 -0500 Original-Received: from webmail-d099 (webmail-d099.sim.aol.com [205.188.255.20]) by smtprly-me01.mx.aol.com (v129.8) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYME016-b2b44d5b3e8b334; Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:03:39 -0500 X-MB-Message-Type: User Original-Received: from 98.185.24.91 by webmail-d099.sysops.aol.com (205.188.255.20) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:03:39 -0500 X-AOL-IP: 98.185.24.91 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-Mailer: AIM WebMail 33222-STANDARD In-Reply-To: <87mxlw7s3i.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> X-AOL-SENDER: idirectscm@aim.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 205.188.91.95 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:5149 Archived-At: 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=20 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=20 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=20 computer > > programmers, who spend their days learning and following the rules=20 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=20 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,=20 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=20 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?" --