[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Various comments

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 44 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 44 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

Hash: SHA1

"Michael Burschik" <Burschik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Procedures
> Are the "%" characters actually supposed to be "*" characters, or did
> I miss something here?

There's this note:

   When % is encountered in the definitions below, the actual name of
   the collection is implied.

so, no, they are not supposed to be `*'.

> Although it is customary not to define the return value of
> destructive functions, the *-remove! functions might return #f or #t
> to indicate whether the collection was actually modified, since
> removing a value that is not present is not defined as an error.

I would say that if you *have* an iterator (and the collection is
mutable), then you have a value that can be removed.  So, IMHO,
sticking with the undefined returned value is correct, and concurs
with most other SRFIs that include destructive ops (except, perhaps
SRFI-1 where these are called linear updates).

(Besides tradition, I've nothing against returning useful values from
destructive ops, though.)


- --Francisco
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)