[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Various comments
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"Michael Burschik" <Burschik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----