On 9 March 2013 16:25, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Should we remove the brackets entirely? i.e
I would not. The brackets are fairly standard for optional arguments.
On Sat 09 Mar 2013 02:58, Daniel Hartwig writes:
> -- Scheme Procedure: eval-string string [#:module=#f] [#:file=#f]
> [#:line=#f] [#:column=#f] [#:lang=(current-language)]
> [#:compile?=#f]
>
> we see that there is some potential confusion between the close,
> unescaped (as
On 9 March 2013 09:58, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
> On 3 March 2013 17:45, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> On Sun 03 Mar 2013 02:07, Daniel Hartwig writes:
>>
>>> Can I ask whether it is preferred to use, e.g. @code{#f}, for the
>>> default values, as some places seem to and others don't. This patch
>>> is not
On 3 March 2013 17:45, Andy Wingo wrote:
> On Sun 03 Mar 2013 02:07, Daniel Hartwig writes:
>
>> Can I ask whether it is preferred to use, e.g. @code{#f}, for the
>> default values, as some places seem to and others don't. This patch
>> is not using @code, but then, neither does it touch any doc
On Sun 03 Mar 2013 02:07, Daniel Hartwig writes:
> Can I ask whether it is preferred to use, e.g. @code{#f}, for the
> default values, as some places seem to and others don't. This patch
> is not using @code, but then, neither does it touch any doc. that was
> previously.
Good question. Do you
On 3 March 2013 03:36, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Hi Bake,
>
> On Fri 03 Feb 2012 14:28, Andy Wingo writes:
>
>> Hi Bake,
>>
>> This patch looks great. I do have a couple of comments before
>> applying. It would probably be useful to have input from others as
>> well, so I'm copying guile-devel.
>>
>>
Hi Bake,
On Fri 03 Feb 2012 14:28, Andy Wingo writes:
> Hi Bake,
>
> This patch looks great. I do have a couple of comments before
> applying. It would probably be useful to have input from others as
> well, so I'm copying guile-devel.
>
> On Mon 16 Jan 2012 20:46, Bake Timmons writes:
>> -@d
Andy Wingo writes:
> On Mon 16 Jan 2012 20:46, Bake Timmons writes:
>> -@deffn {Scheme Procedure} resolve-module name [autoload=#t]
>> [version=#f] [#:ensure=#t]
>> +@deffn {Scheme Procedure} resolve-module name [autoload=#t [version=#f]] @
>> + [#:ensure ensure=#t]
>
>
Andy Wingo writes:
> Also, it seems pedantic to repeat the keyword arguments (once as
> keyword, once as identifier). Surely #:foo=bar is unambiguous?
Since guile use the same name for both the keyword and identifier, I'd
say so.
--
Ian Price
"Programming is like pinball. The reward for doin
Hello! :-)
Andy Wingo skribis:
> On Mon 16 Jan 2012 20:46, Bake Timmons writes:
>> -@deffn {Scheme Procedure} resolve-module name [autoload=#t] [version=#f]
>> [#:ensure=#t]
>> +@deffn {Scheme Procedure} resolve-module name [autoload=#t [version=#f]] @
>> + [#:ensure
Hi Bake,
This patch looks great. I do have a couple of comments before
applying. It would probably be useful to have input from others as
well, so I'm copying guile-devel.
On Mon 16 Jan 2012 20:46, Bake Timmons writes:
> -@deffn {Scheme Procedure} resolve-module name [autoload=#t] [version=#f]
Attached is a patch to improve optional variable and keyword notation of
Texinfo function definitions.
While this patch fixes blatant errors, it's not particularly
interesting, except for how we improve some keyword notation in the
manual. It is useful and natural to refer to the associated value
12 matches
Mail list logo
