optional argument notation | Marc Feeley | 18 Dec 2000 20:58 UTC |

Re: optional argument notation | shivers@xxxxxx | 18 Dec 2000 21:13 UTC |

Re: optional argument notation | Marc Feeley | 18 Dec 2000 21:35 UTC |

Re: optional argument notation

*shivers@xxxxxx*18 Dec 2000 21:13 UTCI notice that in all of your documents (including SRFI-1) you use this notation for optional arguments: string-hash s [bound start end] -> integer I find this notation to be missleading because it suggests that you can only pass one or four parameters (but I believe you want 1, 2, or 4). So you should write: string-hash s [bound [start end]] -> integer It must be misleading, since you got it wrong both ways! a [b c d] means these are all OK: a a b a b c a b c d I find the pedantic alternative of writing, e.g., string-hash s [bound [start [end]]] -> integer too ugly and hard to parse. If there *were* a case where optional args were "chunked," it would be rare enough that I could simply mention it in the accompanying text. I will add a little explanatory paragraph to the SRFIs describing the meaning of this notation. How's that? -Olin