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

Re: fixnumXXX and fxXXX names, and other things

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 77 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 77 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

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.