[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
"signalling" vs "signaling"
I think it is certainly within the charter of the drafting committee
to regularize spelling and word usage. I think it was discourteous
of Dick to do this to Kent's stuff without informing him, although
I expect Dick has the excuse that he didn't know that Kent cared
about this and assumed that the existing spelling had been chosen
arbitrarily and didn't really matter. I think it was excessive of
Kent to fly off the handle so vigorously over such a small point.
I thought the change from "signalled" to "signaled" might have been done
to make the Conditions section consistent with the existing Error
Terminology section. However, all versions of the Error Terminology
section that I have, the oldest and the newest, use the double L
spelling. On the other hand, 88-002R uses the single L. On the third
hand, the most recent version I've seen (in the one place I checked) of
the parts of the ANSI Common Lisp specification that evolved from
88-002R use the double L. Thus it appears that X3J13 has voted in
favor of both spellings at different times, but the trend is towards
the double L, for what that is worth (very little in my opinion, X3J13
has usually disclaimed responsibility for wording).
It would be better if our document used the same spellings throughout,
although if you consult the list of priorities that we all agreed to in
June, consistent spelling was not a priority. Since it's not a
priority, I'd rather not hear anything more about it. When the time
comes to make the spelling consistent, if I had to choose I would choose
the double L because that's what the Error Terminology section as voted
for by X3J13 uses, however either way would be equally acceptable as far
as I am concerned.