Re: Review of draft #2 Lassi Kortela 20 Sep 2019 22:05 UTC
>> Not guaranteeing they are fixnums [...] > > Saying they are exact integers in the range 0-127 *does* guarantee they are > fixnums. I mean that the user can pass in integers that overflow the fixnum range. For example (ascii-upper-case? #x99999999999999999999). I'd like an R6RS implementation of ascii-upper-case? and the others to be able to use fx<? to compare the integer passed by the user. > Okay, leave these uses of "fixnum" for offsets, then. It's not just the offsets; see above. I'm still slightly confused but I attempted some new language re: fixnums and integers in the next draft; please let me know what you think. >> I think the name >> "ascii-horizontal-whitespace?" is far too long; hence it should remain >> "space-or-tab?" or be abbreviated somehow. > > That's why we have code completion in Emacs and other IDEs. But if it > troubles you, you could drop "whitespace" from the name. If an abstraction > is worth a predicate, it's worth having a name for it. (Ditto with "ASCII > codepoint".) Lots of Scheme is written without code completion, it's still hard to read longer identifiers and they cause long lines which forces people to put more line breaks in code; and space-or-tab? is a very common and simple operation. That's why I think we should limit the length of its name. ascii-horz-white? would be OK with me but it's a bit weird since the name of ascii-whitespace? is unabbreviated. And we need to have that name because Scheme has had char-whitespace? since R2RS (!) so there's no sense in gratuitously breaking from this time-tested convention. space-or-tab also has the advantage that practically everyone understands it instantly.