On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM, ノートン ジョーセフ ウェイ ン <[email protected] > 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 [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
