On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:30 PM, ノートン ジョーセフ ウェイ ン <[email protected] > 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 <[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
