A few more minor tweaks
Mark H Weaver
(29 Oct 2012 06:46 UTC)
|
Re: A few more minor tweaks
Mark H Weaver
(29 Oct 2012 06:53 UTC)
|
Re: A few more minor tweaks David A. Wheeler (29 Oct 2012 18:19 UTC)
|
Re: A few more minor tweaks
Alan Manuel Gloria
(30 Oct 2012 01:52 UTC)
|
Re: A few more minor tweaks David A. Wheeler 29 Oct 2012 18:20 UTC
Mark H Weaver: > The current draft says: > > Even some Lisp advocates, like Paul Graham, admit that they "don't find > > prefix math expressions natural" (http://www.paulgraham.com/pypar.html) > > That URL does not contain that quote. This one does: > > http://www.paulgraham.com/popular.html Whups! Thanks for pointing that out, I'm not sure how the wrong URL got there. Fixed in my local version, to be posted. > > 2. e{} => (e) when there are zero or more whitespace characters within > > the braces; otherwise, e{...} => (e {...}). E.g., > > f{n - 1} => (f {n - 1}) => (f (- n 1)), and g{- x} => (g (- x)). > [...] > > 7. These recurse left-to-right. E.g., f{n - 1}(x) => f({n - 1})(x) => > > (f (- n 1))(x) ((f (- n 1)) x) > > For consistency with the rule given in item 2, I suggest rewriting the > first intermediate step "f({n - 1})(x)" in item 7 as "(f {n - 1})(x)". Agree, done. > Also, since items 4 through 6 use the word "MUST", for consistency I > suggest writing "7. These MUST recurse left-to-right." Agree, done. > > 4. There MUST NOT be whitespace between e and the open paired character > > for the above mappings to apply. > > This requirement seems poorly worded for reasons that I find difficult to > explain. It has to do with "MUST NOT" being applied to a condition that > might or might not be true (whitespace between e and the open paired > character), rather than to an action that the implementation must not > take. > > I suggest rewriting it as something closer to: "The above mappings MUST > NOT be applied if whitespace characters are present between e and the open > paired character." and later: > s/whitespace characters/one or more whitespace characters/ > "The above mappings MUST NOT be applied if one or more whitespace > characters are present between e and the open paired character." Agree, done. > > Where datum comments are supported using #;, datum comments SHOULD > > comment the datum as defined above. > > You might consider referencing SRFI-62, which was the first specification > for these datum comments (later adopted by both R6RS and R7RS). Yes, I think we should mention all three. Alan Manuel Gloria: > I was reading through Guile-devel and found this gem by Mark H. Weaver: > http://www.mail-archive.com/xxxxxx@gnu.org/msg10088.html ... > The explanation might look good in the design rationale. Agreed. Fixed in my local copy. I'll try to post an update later today, if the hurricane lets me. --- David A. Wheeler