In general, I agree with Harvey that it makes sense these days to do things the other way around. Hey, it's kind of like the "better ideas" of doing away with order-of-operations or programming notationally rather than lexically: you're bound to get resistance.
However, in this case, particularly for my purpose of linking to the original Turing Award lecture, I agree with Roger that keeping the historical document "as-is" makes more sense. On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Roger Hui <[email protected]> wrote: > I want to be as faithful to the original as reasonable; > therefore, I am sticking to the current errata arrangement. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hahn, Harvey" <[email protected]> > Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:33 > Subject: Re: [Jgeneral] Notation as a Tool of Thought > To: General forum <[email protected]> > > > Roger Hui wrote: > > |The wrong symbol for floor was in the original paper > > |and is noted in the Errata section. > > > > Errata/Corrigenda sections were obviously necessary in print > > publications because you can't change the printed page, but, for > > pete'ssake, we're now in an online world, and distributable > > documents should > > have the correct versions within them. Why promulgate > > errors?? There's > > enough of that on the Internet already! For repristinators > > who want to > > recreate the original error-filled document for themselves, > > reverse the > > print-world process and have an "Errors Corrected" section (containing > > the print errors) at the end. > ... -- Devon McCormick, CFA ^me^ at acm. org is my preferred e-mail ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
