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. -- Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out. --Arthur C. Clarke, "The Nine Billion Names of God" John Cowan <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
