[Scheme-reports] Comments on draft 6
Vitaly Magerya
(18 Feb 2012 15:31 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Comments on draft 6 Jussi Piitulainen (18 Feb 2012 15:56 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Comments on draft 6
John Cowan
(18 Feb 2012 23:16 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Comments on draft 6
Alex Shinn
(19 Feb 2012 05:24 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Comments on draft 6
John Cowan
(19 Feb 2012 19:23 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Comments on draft 6
John Cowan
(19 Feb 2012 22:39 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Comments on draft 6
Vitaly Magerya
(20 Feb 2012 15:53 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Comments on draft 6
John Cowan
(20 Feb 2012 18:50 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Comments on draft 6
Vitaly Magerya
(21 Feb 2012 15:34 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Comments on draft 6
John Cowan
(21 Feb 2012 16:25 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Comments on draft 6
Alex Shinn
(23 Feb 2012 01:27 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Comments on draft 6
John Cowan
(23 Feb 2012 03:27 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on draft 6
Arthur A. Gleckler
(21 Feb 2012 05:39 UTC)
|
Re: Comments on draft 6
Arthur A. Gleckler
(21 Feb 2012 06:29 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] Comments on draft 6
John Cowan
(22 Feb 2012 22:34 UTC)
|
Vitaly Magerya writes: [snip much] > Finally, in many places where a function is described the report > first says "it is an error if [...]" and only then describes what > the function does. Can we reverse this order? Seconded. From what I remember in the draft that I last read - which is not the current draft - some of the "it is an error if" statements could be removed, since the type of the argument is already specified unobtrusively by the argument name in the entry head. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports