This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0070_01BFC966.A466A220
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Oops, previous post vanished somehow.
Thanks, Reuben, for your comments.
Well, I wish I knew where to find some absolutely
authoritative sources on these matters.
I realize that people are going to type however they
want. As I said, I'm not trying to get anyone to change.
But historically I find this very interesting.
For example, Eric S. Raymond in the Jargon File makes
the claim that the use of MATCHED quotes is a hackish
tradition or innovation, and implies that the use of
UNMATCHED quotes (such as Steven complains about)
are the norm.
He says that the use of matched quotes comes from the
habitual use of programming languages which use them,
and that they are NOT standard in everyday use. I claim=20
the opposite: That normal matched quotes showed up in=20
computer languages because they were the norm, and=20
that the unmatched quotes are the more recent (and=20
non-standard) innovation.
I have the dubious honor of having used typewriters since=20
I was 7, and never having seen a computer till 1977 or so=20
(when I was 16).
I never saw the mismatched quotes until (I guess) the mid-80s,
and I considered it to be an oddball computer nerd habit.
In fact, I thought it had to do with some software mis-handling
certain quoted strings. This was the old days, after all.
I have always been aware that in typeset books, left and right
single quotes are different. But I have also always been aware=20
that typing and typesetting are different things.Once the backtick
showed up on computer keyboards, it would never have occurred
to me to co-opt it for use as a left single quote, because: 1) On
90% of the keyboards/displays (then and now?) they don't appear
symmetrical; 2) They obviously don't correspond to each other,
since they are far apart on the keyboard, unlike {}[]()<>; 3) I have
never heard of anyone being taught to use them that way; 4) if they
had been adding a left single-quote, they would have added a left
double-quote also (and changed the appearance of the standard
quotes into right-handed ones!); and 5) the majority of the world=20
still does it the other way (just ask Steven Apter, who even in the
year 2000, has obviously reached adulthood without ever seeing=20
this construct before).
Some questions I have are:
1. When was the backtick added, and for what purpose? I always
assumed it was intended as some kind of accent mark.
2. What do older (60's /70's) typing books say?
3. What do the newer typing books say?
4. Did this practice possibly originate with TeX?
5. What do various style guides say?=20
If anyone chooses to comment on these, I encourage the use=20
of email.
But, as I said before, Ruby is more important.
ObRuby question: OK, if 'class' can be used as a method name, what=20
exactly are the limitations on the usage of keywords? So far I have
tried several things that worked unexpectedly. (I don't have the source
with me.)
You're welcome to quote from the bowels of the parser for others' =
benefit,
but I don't understand lex or yacc or parsers in general (other than the
handmade recursive-descent parsers I've worked with before).
Hal
------=_NextPart_000_0070_01BFC966.A466A220
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2722.2800" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Oops, previous post vanished somehow.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Thanks, Reuben, for your comments.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Well, I wish I knew where to find some=20
absolutely<BR>authoritative sources on these matters.<BR><BR>I realize =
that=20
people are going to type however they<BR>want. As I said, I'm not trying =
to get=20
anyone to change.<BR><BR>But historically I find this very=20
interesting.<BR><BR>For example, Eric S. Raymond in the Jargon File =
makes<BR>the=20
claim that the use of MATCHED quotes is a hackish<BR>tradition or =
innovation,=20
and implies that the use of<BR>UNMATCHED quotes (such as Steven =
complains=20
about)<BR>are the norm.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>He says that the use of matched quotes comes from=20
the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>habitual use of programming languages which use=20
them,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>and that they are NOT standard in everyday use. =
</FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2>I claim </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>the opposite: That normal matched quotes showed =
</FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2>up in </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>computer languages because they were the norm, and=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>that the unmatched quotes are the more recent (and=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>non-standard) innovation.<BR><BR>I have the =
</FONT><FONT=20
size=3D2>dubious honor of having used typewriters since </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I was 7, and </FONT><FONT size=3D2>never having seen =
a computer=20
till 1977 or so </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>(when I was 16).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I never saw the mismatched quotes until (I guess) =
the=20
mid-80s,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>and I considered it to be an oddball computer nerd=20
habit.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>In fact, I thought it had to do with some software=20
mis-handling</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>certain quoted strings. This was the old days, after =
all.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I have always been aware that in typeset books, left =
and=20
right</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>single quotes are different. But I have also always =
been aware=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>that typing and typesetting are different =
things.Once the=20
backtick</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>showed up on computer keyboards, it would never have =
occurred</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>to me to co-opt it for use as a left single quote, =
because: 1)=20
On</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>90% of the keyboards/displays (then and now?) they =
don't=20
appear</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>symmetrical; 2) They obviously don't correspond to =
each=20
other,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>since they are far apart on the keyboard, unlike=20
{}[]()<>; 3) I have</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>never heard of anyone being taught to use them that =
way; 4) if=20
they</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>had been adding a left single-quote, they would have =
added a=20
left</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>double-quote also (and changed the appearance of the =
standard</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>quotes into right-handed ones!); and </FONT><FONT =
size=3D2>5)=20
the majority of the world </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>still does it the other way (just ask Steven Apter, =
who even=20
in the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>year 2000, has obviously reached adulthood without =
ever seeing=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>this construct before).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Some questions I have are:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>1. When was the backtick added, and for what =
purpose? I=20
always</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>assumed it was intended as some kind of accent=20
mark.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>2. What do older (60's /70's) typing books =
say?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>3. What do the newer typing books say?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>4. Did this practice possibly originate with =
TeX?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>5. What do various style guides say? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>If anyone chooses to comment on these, I =
encourage the=20
use </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>of email.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>But, as I said before, Ruby is more =
important.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>ObRuby question: OK, if 'class' can be used as a =
method name,=20
what </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>exactly are the limitations on the usage of =
keywords? So far I=20
have</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>tried several things that worked unexpectedly. (I =
don't have=20
the source</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>with me.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>You're welcome to quote from the bowels of the =
parser for=20
others' benefit,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>but I don't understand lex or yacc or parsers in =
general=20
(other than the</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>handmade recursive-descent parsers I've worked with=20
before).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Hal</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0070_01BFC966.A466A220--