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

Re: fixnumXXX and fxXXX names, and other things



The current convention is inconsistent across the different types. I find it confusing that the inference

  fixnum? -->  fixnum+, fixnum<

is correct, but that the inference

  flonum? -->  flonum+, flonum-

is incorrect.  Furthermore, the inference

  exact+, inexact+, fixnum+ --> flonum+

is also incorrect, as is the inference

  fixnum-negative? --> fl-negative?

I don't think brevity is a good reason for inconsistencies that do not cater as much to those who write fixnum-intensive code as it does to those who write flintensive code? In any case, the library proposal allows rebinding of often-used names for those who really desire brevity.

Erratum: The examples to illustrate div_0 and mod_0 instead show div and mod.

Regards
Andre