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.
Per Bothner <per@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Personally I prefer to specify which operation to use by (optional) > type declarations, rather than explicitly specying the operation. > That is more like what other languages do, including Common Lisp. > Specifying parameter, returns, and global variable types is better > for documentation, better for error-checking, and is easier for > compilers to generate better code. Also, it makes the code more > readable. It's a choice bwteeen: > (define (square-sum (x :: <flonum>) (y :: <flonum>)) > (+ (* x x) (* y y))) > or: > (define (square-sum x y) > (fl+ (fl* x x) (fl* y))) I personally have no objection to type declaration, but disagree that the code becomes more readable. In fact, I've seen plenty of evidence that the exact opposite is the case, both in the C world (with type declarations) and in the R5RS/CL world (without). Some anecdotal evidence can be found in the paper by Egner et al. cited at the bottom of the SRFI. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla