Re: [Scheme-reports] inconsistent use of \| escape

On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 8:12 AM, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote:

Alex Shinn scripsit:

> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 2:35 AM, Per Bothner <per@x> wrote:
>
> > Section 6.7 "Strings" lists '\|' as an escape sequence valid in strings.
> > However, 7.1.1 "Lexical structure" does *not* show '\|' as valid syntax
> > in <string element> - it does not match <mnemonic escape>.
> > OTOH <symbol element> explicitly lists '\|'.
> >
> > I assume the formal syntax is correct, and 6.7 needs some editorial
> > tweaking.
>
> Yes, the formal syntax is correct.

That turns out not to be the case. See ticket #390, which as chair you
decided to treat as editorial in your 6th ballot announcement at
<https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=scheme-reports-wg1/czr_aX41Sbs/pQ9TVml4IecJ>
I simply forgot to update the formal syntax in revision 580:adb8521923be.

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.

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

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. We should treat this as an editorial errata on

the prose as Per expected.

Alex