On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 8:15 AM, John Cowan <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
