Re: [Scheme-reports] Comments on draft 6

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 8:15 AM, John Cowan <cowan@x> wrote:
> Jussi Piitulainen scripsit:
>
>> > Finally, in many places where a function is described the report
>> > first says "it is an error if [...]" and only then describes what
>> > the function does. Can we reverse this order?
>>
>> Seconded. From what I remember in the draft that I last read - which
>> is not the current draft - some of the "it is an error if" statements
>> could be removed, since the type of the argument is already specified
>> unobtrusively by the argument name in the entry head.
>
> I've changed most of these around, though unfortunately not in time for
> draft 6.  They will be in draft 7, however.

The format has always been that the prototype specifies
the basic types, and additional domain restrictions immediately
follow as the first line of the specification.  This keeps all
domain info together, so I'm inclined not to diverge from the
traditional format here - if anyone wants to swap the order we'd
need a vote.

Of course we should remove redundant domain restrictions
already implied by the prototype.

-- 
Alex

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