Hello Mark, Thank you for your reply. Yes, there may not be enough qualified reviewers here who know German and have time to spare. Is there someplace I could go look for reviewers?
I would like a German Guile manual to exist and started translating R5RS. Many non-experts in programming are put off by having to read English and rather cargo cult copy from tutorials than read the English manual. It would be better if they could use sth like e.g. the German Mozilla Developer Network or the PHP.net manual. R5RS seems helpful as a stepping stone to the rest of Guile despite potential mistranslations. German SICP is great btw, sadly it is not more commonly taught. Then again, maybe a German manual should live in a separate repository so as not to add po4a or similar dependencies. Should I put it in some git repo somewhere stand alone? It would be less official although I would still be glad to get reviews. If dependencies etc are not a concern though and someone qualified can review it, then please add translated manuals. On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:08:19PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > A large technical specification like this is quite hard to produce > without introducing many mistakes. Even when everyone in a standards > committee is focused on the same draft document, errors are frequently > introduced. > English R5RS has two errors that I know of. Eq? is claimed to return “true or false”, but the examples make clear it is #t or #f. In the specification of with-output-to-file a THUNK argument is referred to as PROC. Should such (minor) errors be fixed? One of my patches also fixes a misplaced space character in the Texinfo. Regards, Florian
