Re: [PATCH] build: Fix potential type error when generating human-friendly byte count strings.

[Steve Sprang]

Hi Mark,

Does the updated patch look okay? I'm making some related changes and it would be easier if this patch was integrated.

Thanks!

-Steve

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Steve Sprang <address@hidden> wrote:

Sure thing. Here you go.

-Steve

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> wrote:

Steve Sprang <address@hidden> writes:

> This is a follow up tweak to my previous "progress bar" patch. With a
> really slow throughput it's possible to get fractional sub-KiB byte
> counts, so I added some additional number massaging.

Sounds good!  Looks good to me except for a few minor nits on this
auxiliary procedure:

> +(define (number->integer n)
> +  "Given an arbitrary number N, round it and return the exact result."
> +  (inexact->exact (round n)))

How about calling it "nearest-exact-integer"?  Also, it makes sense only
for real numbers, not arbitrary numbers, and the variable name N is
conventionally used to denote natural numbers, and X for real numbers.

So, how about naming the argument 'x', and using something closer to the
following docstring:

  "Given a real number X, return the nearest exact integer, with ties
going to the nearest exact even integer."

Otherwise, looks good to me.  Can you send an updated patch?

      Mark