Open nckx opened 6 years ago
Good point. I guess it is better to revert the changes for consistency. On the other hand, I accepted a large patch of changes to sicp-pdf a while ago that uncapitalized the symbols very thoroughly. Nevertheless, I would err on the direction of being faithful to the original.
Thank your for raising the issue, I will make the suggested change soon.
Thanks for your response!
On the other hand, I accepted a large patch of changes to sicp-pdf a while ago that uncapitalized the symbols very thoroughly.
Oh, sure! It's different if done thoroughly and consistently. My main issue was with 2 commits changing 2 (seemingly) random occurrences for unclear reasons, and leaving all others.
I guess most people expect programming languages to be (more) case-sensitive. While I admit to preferring the original old-school style, I do understand why one might make a different choice.
Nevertheless, I would err on the direction of being faithful to the original.
I think that's what most readers expect from this version — but again, that's my biased opinion...
Thank you for a wonderful, portable version of SICP!
I noticed two commits in the past year that change two (single) occurrences of symbols beginning a sentence to lowercase:
else
keyword to lower casegood-enough?
caseHowever, capitalisation is done throughout the book:
Not
is an ordinary procedure.”Average-damp
is a procedure [...] Usingaverage-damp
, we can [...]”Scheme itself isn't case-sensitive, so this makes sense. There are implementations that are. I can see how someone might have typed
Else
into their REPL, got an error thrown back, and fired off a well-meaning PR.Even so, going against the obvious intentions of the authors of both the book and the language is quite... invasive.
If (since?) this version is considered to be a modernised rendering of the original, and not an editorial fork, I'd like to request reverting the above changes to match both ‘upstream’ and the rest of the book.