Scheme language standardization process
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote: > Alex Shinn scripsit: > >> Unfortunately, when the formal syntax differs from the prose, >> the formal syntax takes precedence. Whatever the WG intentions >> may have been, the community ratified a standard in which \| >> is not a predefined escape sequence in strings. Referring to old >> ballots was fine during the process, but now can only serve for >> historical interests and to dig up rationales. > > Unsurprisingly, I don't agree. The prose has always taken precedence > in my mind, and in fact I tend to forget about the formal syntax, which > is undoubtedly why I forgot to update it. > >> Looking for additional discussion it looks like the most recent public >> post was during the formal comments period: >> >> http://lists.scheme-reports.org/pipermail/scheme-reports/2013-January/003223.html > > That post and its followups obviously didn't notice the contradiction > either: they were discussing the formal syntax in its local context, > not in the context of the whole report. (Nobody's fault, of course.) > >> Attention was specifically brought to this, and a fix was made retaining >> the formal syntax, so I think it's difficult to go back on this now. > > If the point had been raised that "\|" contradicted the prose, then I > agree that this post would matter; as things are, I again cannot agree > that this post is definitive or even relevant. > > I think the only thing we can do in the errata is to point out the > contradiction and say that implementers will have to decide on their > own whether to support \| in strings or not. I think it is better to make a decision one way or the other. oo--JS. > > -- > Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out. > --Arthur C. Clarke, "The Nine Billion Names of God" > John Cowan <cowan@x> _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports