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.
John Cowan <cowan@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> William D Clinger scripsit:
>
>> Do you like the fxringXXX convention Marc Feeley
>> suggested, or would you prefer some other convention?
>
> I can live with it, I suppose.
>
> How about fxq (quiet) and fxs (signaling), by analogy with
> the IEEE notion of quiet and signaling NaNs?
What happened to the idea of "speaking" function names? I
already feels some discomfort at "saving" a whole character by
replacing FIX with FX, but ok. But FXQ, FXS...?
I'd actually prefer FIXNUM to be the prefix for error generating
procedures, and FIXRING (or FIXNUM-WRAP or something like that)
for procedures that wrap on overflow.
Regards,
-- Jorgen
--
((email . "forcer@xxxxxxxxx") (www . "http://www.forcix.cx/";)
(gpg . "1024D/028AF63C") (irc . "nick forcer on IRCnet"))