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.
thanks,
Joe N.
On Jan 22, 2013, at 11:56 , Alex Shinn <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
