[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 <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> lloda <lloda@sarc.name> 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
not.
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
comments.
Thanks
Daniel
>> 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’.
0002-Document-multiple-value-returns-in-forms-taking-a-le.patch
Description: Binary data