From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ken Raeburn Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: compiler.texi: Compiling to the virtual machine Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:43:30 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87fxjmltab.fsf@gnu.org> <87d4elr0gs.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1232397924 17275 80.91.229.12 (19 Jan 2009 20:45:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:45:24 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 19 21:46:35 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LP10s-0002Jn-82 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:46:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39097 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LP0za-0002qt-Vu for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:45:07 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LP0yd-0002N9-9F for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:44:07 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LP0ya-0002L9-6g for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:44:06 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=32874 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LP0yZ-0002Kr-Nf for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:44:03 -0500 Original-Received: from raeburn.org ([69.25.196.97]:31955) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LP0yO-0006aV-LQ for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:44:03 -0500 Original-Received: from [10.0.0.172] ([10.0.0.172]) by raeburn.org (8.14.3/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n0JKhW7c009552; Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:43:32 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87d4elr0gs.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: NetBSD 3.0 (DF) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:8058 Archived-At: On Jan 17, 2009, at 18:12, Ludovic Court=E8s wrote: >>> s/e.g./e.g.,/ >> >> To me, s/e.g./for example/ is an idempotent transformation. So if the >> clause after "e.g." is short, no comma necessary. Otherwise you =20 >> need a >> comma for breath. But maybe it is a snooty style. > > I dunno, I thought the comma was sort of compulsory. > > A quick googling reveals that opinions diverge, but that the comma =20 > after > "e.g." is often used in American English. My understanding is that in American usage you always put in the =20 comma; leaving it out (and sometimes the periods as well) seems to be =20= more common in British usage. (Actually, I suspect that technically a =20= comma should be required with "for example" as well, regardless of the =20= author's breathing patterns; I've seen at least one style guide =20 supporting that.) What I've seen vary more is whether "i.e." and =20 "e.g.", as (abbreviations for) Latin, should be italicized. I =20 generally use italics, in a medium that permits it, and always learned =20= to do it that way, but I've seen at least one style guide recently =20 that says not to bother. Does the FSF have a style guide for this sort of thing? ... Okay, I just pulled up the GNU Coding Standards document, which =20 says nothing about this but use "e.g." always in Roman or bold (in =20 code examples) and with inconsistent comma usage (present in text, =20 absent in code examples, so they may have been written by different =20 people without attention to that detail), and "A Style Guide for GNU =20 Documentation" = (http://www.gnu.org/doc/Press-use/GNU-Press-styleguide.pdf=20 ) which also fails to address this or to even use "e.g." or "i.e.", =20 but uses "etc." in plain Roman, and specifically says to use only =20 logical markup, not typographical markup, with the one exception of @r =20= "to cause plain, explanatory text in a table or example to be in a =20 Roman font." Since they don't touch on "e.g."/"i.e."/"etc." usage in =20= the text, and the specific guideline elsewhere is "italic" and not =20 "strong" or "emphasized", I wonder if what's written is really the =20 intent or if they just didn't think of these cases. Ken=