[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] inconsistent use of \| escape
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:
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.
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