() Paul Smith
() Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:55:05 -0500
Any suggestions [...] will be welcome
I looked at the doc file and have these suggestions:
- In Scheme, it is customary to say "procedure" instead of "function".
I suggest 8.13.2 Interfaces from Guile to `make' explicitly state that
(for t
Oh yeah, i forgot: I think Make vars should not be
accessed by a Scheme string, but rather a symbol:
(define (gmk-var v)
(or (symbol? v) (error "not a symbol:" v))
(gmk-expand (format #f "$(~a)" (obj-to-str v
On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 09:51 +0100, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> - In Scheme, it is customary to say "procedure" instead of "function".
> I suggest 8.13.2 Interfaces from Guile to `make' explicitly state that
> (for those unfamiliar w/ Scheme), and then liberally specify "function"
> for Make fun
() Paul Smith
() Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:12:29 -0500
> - The â#t => tâ distinguishes the symbol t from others, which feels wrong.
> I suggest #t => ""; #f => error.
[desirability of #t => "t" and #f => ""]
Thanks. Now that i understand the motivation, i think the current
way is fine. Y
On Sun, 2012-01-15 at 21:11 +0100, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
>[desirability of #t => "t" and #f => ""]
>
> Thanks. Now that i understand the motivation, i think the current
> way is fine. You should move this excellent example into the docs.
OK I'll try to find a realistic example to make thi
