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

[ノートン ジョーセフ ウェイ ン <norton@x>]

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.

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