ITT we list canonical typos and mistakes in /prog/ramming

HTTP referer

RFC as `Request for Comment'.
It actually means, `Do it this way, or I'll Rearrange your Face, you fucking Cunt'.
I certainly don't remember receiving any request to make comments, do any of you?

foldl instead of foldl'.

car/cdr instead of head/tail

>>2
Getting your face rearranged is a comment of sorts, is it not?

>>5
True, but it's not much of a request.

>>2
" Unlike the modern RFCs, many of the early RFCs were actual requests for comments and were titled as such to avoid sounding too declarative and to encourage discussion."

>>4
my other automobile is a version of an outdated optical media standard that can only have data written to it once before becoming read-only :^)
my other car is a CD-R :-DDD

>>7
So why are they still called RFCs? The definition of `request' has not changed. The definition of `comment' has not changed. The definitions of these words when put into a phrase has not changed.

This is all very understandable when you think a bit deeper. The intention is not to provide an accurate description, but a persuasive deception. The reader is lured into the false sense of democracy and community. It is much more welcoming that the dictatorial title that would be more accurate.

>>2
You can still comment on RFCs, just none of us are important enough to.

If you work at Google or Microsoft, you get to comment.

Has Lambda ever rearranged a face over his precious ``DA STANDARD''?

Nope. Not even once. Can't even muster the same level of enforcement as the Coffee Pot Control Protocol.

>>10

If you work at Google or Microsoft, you get to comment.

Well, the people at google and microsoft are the ones that make the RFC, why would they comment on them?