Re: [Scheme-reports] Question regarding R7RS draft 8 regarding section 1.3.3 Entry format

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:30 PM, ノートン ジョーセフ ウェイ ン <norton@x
> wrote:

>
> Alex -
>
> Thanks for your feedback/comments.
>
> Based on my partial review of the prototypes, the naming conventions used
> to imply type restrictions could benefit from having the following
> additions:
>
>   false
>     #f boolean value
>
>   j, j~1~, ... , j~k~, ...
>     exact non-zero integer
>
>   m, m~1~, ... , m~j~, ...
>     non-zero integer
>
> This would help clarify the expected arguments and/or return value(s).
>   NOTE: I choose j and m arbitrarily.
>

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the naming conventions -
they document the conventions used in the report.  So they shouldn't
be chosen arbitrarily but follow from the prototypes, and we don't
currently use any of those names.

-- 
Alex


>
> thanks,
>
> Joe N.
>
> On Jan 22, 2013, at 11:56 , Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, ノートン ジョーセフ ウェイ ン <
> norton@x> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello.
>>
>> During my review of R7RS, I have felt that it would be friendlier to the
>> reader if explicit return types for all procedures were added as part of
>> the standard entry format.
>>
>> For example ...
>>
>> (number? obj) -> boolean
>> (max x1 x2 …) -> x
>> (inexact z) -> z
>> (exact z) -> z
>>   :
>>   :
>>
>> I realize this information is included in the english description for
>> each procedure.
>>
>> Has this type of change been considered before (or not)?  I'm new to this
>> mailing list so I apologise if this has been discussed before.
>>
>
> It's a likely change, though I don't recall it having been brought
> up before.
>
> The primary objection would be that we already have a lot of
> info on one line (name, argument types, library name and
> procedure/syntax).
>
> It's also not very useful once you're familiar with the
> conventions.  Names ending in '?' are predicates and
> always return booleans, <type> and make-<type> return
> a <type>, arithmetic operators all return complex (in some
> cases with a range that can't be summarized on one line).
>
> And in other cases the description is short and the return
> type mentioned soon enough after the prototype.
>
> So I'd have to see a sample change on one of the busier
> prototypes to see how this looks.  If someone wants to
> make the change I'll take a look - not sure if I'll get around
> to it myself.
>
> [Although I will update scheme-complete.el which will show
> you the return type in eldoc-mode.]
>
> --
> Alex
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports