unofficial mirror of bug-guile@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>
To: b3timmons@speedymail.org
Cc: guile-devel <guile-devel@gnu.org>, 10522@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#10522: Patch: Improve optional variable and keyword notation in manual
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 20:36:24 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <876219egqv.fsf__47669.8334598497$1362253045$gmane$org@pobox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87obtgjbag.fsf@pobox.com> (Andy Wingo's message of "Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:28:55 +0100")

Hi Bake,

On Fri 03 Feb 2012 14:28, Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com> writes:

> Hi Bake,
>
> This patch looks great.  I do have a couple of comments before
> applying.  It would probably be useful to have input from others as
> well, so I'm copying guile-devel.
>
> On Mon 16 Jan 2012 20:46, Bake Timmons <b3timmons@speedymail.org> writes:
>> -@deffn {Scheme Procedure} resolve-module name [autoload=#t] [version=#f] [#:ensure=#t]
>> +@deffn {Scheme Procedure} resolve-module name [autoload=#t [version=#f]] @
>> +                          [#:ensure ensure=#t]
>
> Nesting the optional arguments in brackets can get a bit ugly.  It is
> precise but verbose.  But I suppose we should not encourage interfaces
> with many optional arguments, so perhaps it is a moot point.
>
> Also, it seems pedantic to repeat the keyword arguments (once as
> keyword, once as identifier).  Surely #:foo=bar is unambiguous?

A year later, I pushed a version of your patch that doesn't nest
optional arguments or duplicate the keyword argument names, but it does
apply the other changes (and it makes keyword argument notation more
consistent).  Thanks for the patch, and looking forward to more of them
:)

Andy
-- 
http://wingolog.org/





  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-03-02 19:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-01-16 19:46 bug#10522: Patch: Improve optional variable and keyword notation in manual Bake Timmons
2012-02-03 13:28 ` Andy Wingo
     [not found] ` <87obtgjbag.fsf@pobox.com>
2012-02-03 23:54   ` Ludovic Courtès
2012-02-04  3:34   ` Ian Price
2012-02-04 13:16   ` Bake Timmons
2013-03-02 19:36   ` Andy Wingo [this message]
     [not found]   ` <876219egqv.fsf@pobox.com>
2013-03-03  1:07     ` Daniel Hartwig
     [not found]     ` <CAN3veRdEYBkcFAVtNhZ4Jy20rM-MawdqWsU-gFwQtW6-19XwDw@mail.gmail.com>
2013-03-03  9:45       ` Andy Wingo
     [not found]       ` <871ubwg6kf.fsf@pobox.com>
2013-03-09  1:58         ` Daniel Hartwig
     [not found]         ` <CAN3veRfGq=jGjiuisX5RjusQFmdwc1mGDpuaWbEWrE3WZ=vOtA@mail.gmail.com>
2013-03-09  2:03           ` Daniel Hartwig
2013-03-09  8:25           ` Andy Wingo
     [not found]           ` <871ubp56a6.fsf@pobox.com>
2013-03-10  0:10             ` Daniel Hartwig

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='876219egqv.fsf__47669.8334598497$1362253045$gmane$org@pobox.com' \
    --to=wingo@pobox.com \
    --cc=10522@debbugs.gnu.org \
    --cc=b3timmons@speedymail.org \
    --cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).