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 -

Sorry if my e-mail was not clear.

I hope this example can illustrate what I was trying to say.

The current report has:

(floor/ n1 n2)                        procedure
(floor-quotient n1 n2)         procedure
(floor-remainder n1 n2)     procedure
 :


The prototype could be changed as follows:

(floor/ n1 m2)                        procedure
(floor-quotient n1 m2)         procedure
(floor-remainder n1 m2)     procedure
 :
 
since it is an error if n2 is zero.

m2 (or m, m1, m3, … etc.) could represent a non-zero integer.


More specific prototypes (where relevant) could be friendlier for the reader.

thanks,

Joe N.


On Jan 23, 2013, at 17:43 , Alex Shinn <alexshinn@x> wrote:

> 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