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

[Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x>]

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