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 Alan Manuel Gloria 30 Oct 2012 01:52 UTC
Good luck with the hurricane! On 10/30/12, David A. Wheeler <xxxxxx@dwheeler.com> wrote: > 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 > >