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