Re: Typos in the manual

[Mark Harig]

> >
> > >> > 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.
> >

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 
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.
> >

Understood.

> > > 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?
> >

No, it was a general observation of the irony.

--