[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Add internal definitions to derived forms

From: lloda
Subject: Re: Add internal definitions to derived forms
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 18:59:12 +0100

> On 24 Jan 2023, at 10:02, Ludovic Courtès <> wrote:
> Hi!
> lloda <> skribis:
>>>> @lisp
>>>> -(@var{test} @var{body} @dots{})
>>>> +(@var{test} @var{body})
>>> I think removing dots is incorrect here because it suggests, according
>>> to the typographic conventions used in the document, that there can only
>>> be a single expression.
> [...]
>> This was actually the main thing I wanted to fix in this patch. Linus' patch 
>> had ‘body ...’ but that clearly means ‘zero or more bodies’, which doesn't 
>> work because there's exactly one ‘body’. I.e. ‘body’ isn't an expression 
>> that is tagged ‘body’, it's, well, a ‘body’.
> Yeah, ‘body’ is a bit confusing here; in the example above, I’d have
> written:
>  (@var{test} @var{exp} @dots{})
> because that’s what the “body” is: one or more expressions.

Hmm, it would seem so, but the way the Scheme reports use ‘expression’, it's 

I've added an explicit definition of what the let-expression body is in the 
updated patch, I hope that reads better. Also tried to address your other 


>> The Scheme reports use one ‘<body>’ and no dots in all these definitions. 
>> See also the definition of let in the linked section ‘Local Bindings’, which 
>> again uses ‘body’ and no dots. I hoped that section would count as 
>> definition of ‘body’, and the section on ‘Internal Definitions’ explains 
>> precisely what can go into ‘body’, so I linked to that as well. I see that 
>> isn't clear enough. Maybe ‘body’ should be explicitly defined in one of 
>> these sections?
> Damn it, I hadn’t realized this was a widespread convention, but yeah,
> R5RS and parts of the Guile manual follow this convention.  So hmm, the
> change you propose makes a lot of sense to me now.
> So yeah overall I guess we should always write one of:
>  (something @var{body})
> or:
>  (something @var{exp} @dots{})
> Using @var{body} like you do in this patch is consistent with other
> parts of the manual, so it LGTM.
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.

Attachment: 0002-Document-multiple-value-returns-in-forms-taking-a-le.patch
Description: Binary data

reply via email to

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