Am 17.11.2013 23:38, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:31:34 +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger:
In an attempt to better understand and document the source code I added
type annotations (using the chicken's syntax and using chicken to verify it).
I like this idea. In a few places this
Am 18.11.2013 10:38, schrieb Jörg F. Wittenberger:
Am 17.11.2013 23:38, schrieb David A. Wheeler:
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 21:31:34 +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger:
In an attempt to better understand and document the source code I added
type annotations (using the chicken's syntax and using chicken to
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 12:09:43 +0100, Jörg F. Wittenberger
joerg.wittenber...@softeyes.net wrote:
Attached a slightly better version of the add types patch. This one
replaces (values) with a (no-values) syntax from the compatibility layer
and has those procedures, which used to return no
Jörg F. Wittenberger scripsit:
IMHO there should be no undefined *value* as such. It should be
just undefined what's being returned. If - for some reason - some
fake value need to be there to satisfy some other condition, so be
it. But Scheme would IMHO be better off along the default
In an attempt to better understand and document the source code I added
type annotations (using the chicken's syntax and using chicken to verify
it).
So far I'm only through to the read-related procedures.
But it's so much, I solicit comments from those who know the code.
At least it still
David A. Wheeler scripsit:
I like this idea. In a few places this patch changes return values
to intentionally return (values)... which is also okay by me.
For the record, I've never been a fan of returning zero values when you
have nothing in particular to return. R6RS and R7RS authorize
David A. Wheeler scripsit:
I like this idea. In a few places this patch changes return values
to intentionally return (values)... which is also okay by me.
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:33:16 -0500, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
For the record, I've never been a fan of returning zero
David A. Wheeler scripsit:
That is just mistaken, erroneous, fallacious, ill-judged, and in a
thousand other ways wrong. It may be standards-compliant, but still
wrong. That is really awful, I would never have guessed that. Since
the return value CAN'T matter, it SHOULD NOT matter!!!
