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: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:21:18 -0500 Message-ID: <8CD9C581D0EB43A-1538-292D@webmail-d017.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><8CD9B9D3EC85D3A-714-4D4E@webmail-d099.sysops.aol.com> <87vd0jwmff.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 1297905708 6041 80.91.229.12 (17 Feb 2011 01:21:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 01:21:48 +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 Thu Feb 17 02:21:42 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 1PpsYw-0001q2-4e for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 02:21:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35412 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PpsYu-0004O4-VF for guile-bugs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:21:40 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37299 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PpsYq-0004Nz-6d for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:21:37 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PpsYp-00080u-5B for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:21:36 -0500 Original-Received: from imr-ma04.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.42]:50398) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PpsYp-00080M-2o for bug-guile@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:21:35 -0500 Original-Received: from imo-da02.mx.aol.com (imo-da02.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.200]) by imr-ma04.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p1H1LPO4012803; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:21:25 -0500 Original-Received: from idirectscm@aim.com by imo-da02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id 8.e7f.10d2bde5 (55731); Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:21:21 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from smtprly-mc02.mx.aol.com (smtprly-mc02.mx.aol.com [64.12.95.98]) by cia-md03.mx.aol.com (v129.7) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMD036-d3d24d5c780e3a6; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:21:20 -0500 Original-Received: from webmail-d017 (webmail-d017.sim.aol.com [205.188.181.30]) by smtprly-mc02.mx.aol.com (v129.8) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYMC024-d3d24d5c780e3a6; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:21:19 -0500 X-MB-Message-Type: User Original-Received: from 98.185.24.91 by webmail-d017.sysops.aol.com (205.188.181.30) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:21:18 -0500 X-AOL-IP: 98.185.24.91 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-Mailer: AIM WebMail 33222-STANDARD In-Reply-To: <87vd0jwmff.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: 64.12.206.42 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:5163 Archived-At: > > > > >> > 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=20 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=20 me > > that it could be intended to include reference to me and the Guile > > manual. Hence my general reply above, about the practical=20 constraints > > on computer language evolution being tighter than those on human > > languages. > > It wasn't intended to reference you or the Guile reference manual. It was a response to Ralf Wildenhues's recounting that he had submitted patches that corrected usage to many projects and had them rejected. > > Just to be clear then, I didn't mean to imply that. In fact I=20 believe > > that I and the Guile manual do "follow the rules and idioms of=20 natural > > languages." Note in particular that this thread about "i.e.," is > > nothing to do with the looseness of human language constraints=20 (i.e., > > the kind of thing that allows many people today to say "you was"=20 rather > > than "you were"). It's to do with a convention that has forked in=20 two > > standard forms of English. > > Understood. > > > 4) Programmers develop strong opinions about what is ugly or clean > > > in computer languages, despite the fact that this is not=20 described in > > > the language specifications. Yet, when something is pointed out > > > as clean or ugly in natural language, that developed sense is=20 dismissed. > > > > When you say "dismissed", are you including this thread, and/or=20 Guile > > manual discussions in general? > > No, it was a general observation of the irony. --