[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: r6rs library documentation

From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: Re: r6rs library documentation
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:12:31 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)

Hi Julian!

Julian Graham <address@hidden> writes:

>> How about this instead:
>> address@hidden is an alias for Guile’s @code{quotient} and @code{mod} is
>>  an alias for @code{modulo} (@pxref{Integer Operations}).
> Well, I don't know.  Those exports currently /are/ aliases for those
> procedures, but that's a bug that I introduced because I had some
> hesitation over how to implement the real procedures efficiently.  I
> suppose I should revisit that problem...  :)

Aah, OK.

>> This use of @pxref is incorrect and leads to broken rendering with all
>> back-ends (info "(texinfo) pxref").  The same problem appears in other
>> places.  Could you look into it?
> Fixed as many of these as I could find.  Let me know if you notice other ones.

Cool, thanks.

>> Perhaps add an xref to SRFI-35, in pure TIMTOWTDI spirit.  ;-)
> Done.  Off-topic: While poking around, I noticed that SRFI-35 is
> implemented purely in terms of Guile structs; would it make sense
> later to re-implement using a subset of the features of `(rnrs
> conditions)'?  (Ditto for SRFI-9 and `(rnrs records)'.)

Well, I’m sentimentally attached to the SRFI modules and I remain
R6-skeptical.  ;-)

So, I’d rather have the R6RS modules implemented in terms of the SRFI
modules rather than the other way round.

Now, I agree that SRFI-35 could be implemented in terms of SRFI-9,
especially since SRFI-9 accessors are inlined (initially SRFI-35 was
implemented for Guile 1.8, where it made a difference to use raw

I don’t consider it important though since the SRFIs have no connection
to one another anyway.

>> The ‘---’ should not be surrounded by spaces.  Though according to
>> you could
>> argue that you’re following the /The New York Times Manual of Style and
>> Usage/.  ;-)
> I make no such claim!  Fixed.  :)

Cool!  :-)



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]