Hi!
lloda <ll...@sarc.name> skribis:
>>> @lisp
>>> -(@var{test} @var{body} @dots{})
>>> +(@var{test} @var{body})
>>
>> I think removing dots is incorrect here because it suggests, according
>> to the typographic conventions used in the document, that there can only
>> be a single expression.
[...]
> This was actually the main thing I wanted to fix in this patch. Linus' patch
> had ‘body ...’ but that clearly means ‘zero or more bodies’, which doesn't
> work because there's exactly one ‘body’. I.e. ‘body’ isn't an expression that
> is tagged ‘body’, it's, well, a ‘body’.
Yeah, ‘body’ is a bit confusing here; in the example above, I’d have
written:
(@var{test} @var{exp} @dots{})
because that’s what the “body” is: one or more expressions.
> The Scheme reports use one ‘<body>’ and no dots in all these definitions. See
> also the definition of let in the linked section ‘Local Bindings’, which
> again uses ‘body’ and no dots. I hoped that section would count as definition
> of ‘body’, and the section on ‘Internal Definitions’ explains precisely what
> can go into ‘body’, so I linked to that as well. I see that isn't clear
> enough. Maybe ‘body’ should be explicitly defined in one of these sections?
Damn it, I hadn’t realized this was a widespread convention, but yeah,
R5RS and parts of the Guile manual follow this convention. So hmm, the
change you propose makes a lot of sense to me now.
So yeah overall I guess we should always write one of:
(something @var{body})
or:
(something @var{exp} @dots{})
Using @var{body} like you do in this patch is consistent with other
parts of the manual, so it LGTM.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
