From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: bug#10522: Patch: Improve optional variable and keyword notation in manual Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:28:55 +0100 Message-ID: <87obtgjbag.fsf@pobox.com> References: <87d3ajh1lt.fsf@goof.localdomain> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1328297312 12919 80.91.229.3 (3 Feb 2012 19:28:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 19:28:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel , 10522@debbugs.gnu.org To: b3timmons@speedymail.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 03 20:28:29 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RtOo8-000542-Vp for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:28:29 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40540 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtOo8-0001c3-F1 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:28:28 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:37860) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtOo5-0001YP-Sk for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:28:27 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtOo4-0003Ab-OM for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:28:25 -0500 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([74.115.168.62]:57466 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RtOo4-0003AV-KB for guile-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:28:24 -0500 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25C7D91CF; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 14:28:24 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=oLQ2mb8HX7yudwt1g42vMXrec/Y=; b=w0yj3R mHmyAya1Z7M8TNGCXH8ViRhOWRdpWmEEZCdqxxibnBDsbF3+4U/CTCKrhuG0s4qL YDQORfgK5ulYp5/S/k2q2PPoXI+Nnr2+Ehf2435ZBknIedFuqvBRGwOk5rUX2WUn rrP/xZRw8AmG6Z3g+XwSBqb8ZZbX2xIuVa3YI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=NZk2JyR1JXo/qQISmep3pAz0h86qXvE/ qOof9XM272VjqtYTZstBHJwvKJEVroh82oJxe4+pSbPpAPmHOuVSdLoZ7cLilsdl 7YN97jj88EyXeT320HgZAOqtlcgzQYXgs1jIvseuccOVuKYoAQ4SfGt1J1neK/Cb 3tXUUEZHbTc= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F36591CE; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 14:28:24 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [94.139.51.40]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 825B491CD; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 14:28:23 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87d3ajh1lt.fsf@goof.localdomain> (Bake Timmons's message of "Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:46:38 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 3CEA788C-4E9D-11E1-9AA8-65B1DE995924-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 74.115.168.62 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:13795 Archived-At: 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 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? Anyway, I'm interested what others think about changes like this. Cheers, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/