[plt-scheme] Some More Scribble Questions

I just went and read natural-number/c and it is for an exact non-negative
integer.  Is there any appreciable difference between using
exact-nonnegative-integer? and natural/number/c.  [If so, I think we should
have a positive-number/c to match exact-positive-integer?]  Or, should I
move to the exact integer booleans in contracts now?

That may be a Robby question instead of a Matthew one.

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Doug Williams <m.douglas.williams at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Thanks, Matthew.  It's in good enough shape now to release - which I have.
> I'll move on to the simulation and inference collection documentation now.
> I don't think they'll be as hard as the science collection was.
>
> At some point in time - hopefully within a month or so - I'll revisit the
> science collection documentation and code.  One thing I have noticed from
> reading the PLT Scheme Reference Manual is the inclusion of exact integer
> booleans- things like exact-non-negative integer?.  I assume these are the
> right things to use in the contracts for any arguments that eventually are
> used as vector indices, etc.  I also assume that contract error messages for
> exact-nonnegative-integer? would give a more informative message than for
> (and/c exact? natural-number/c?), etc.
>
> It also seems that there is now a mismatch between how we specify arguments
> and contracts in Scribble, which is very nice, and in the contracts in the
> code.  The defproc format seems to be more intuitive.  I haven't revisited
> the contracts section of the documentations yet - and probably should.
>
> Anyway, thanks for answering all the questions I've had.
>
> Doug
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>> At Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:58:25 -0600, "Doug Williams" wrote:
>> > I get a warning the it collected information multiple times on (mod-path
>> > "(planet williams/main/section/shared)") and (index-entry (mod-path
>> "(planet
>> > williams/main/section/shared)")).  Is there an alternative to the second
>> > defmodule that won't give the warning?
>>
>> `defmodule*/no-declare'.
>>
>> > I also get a warning that it collected information multiple times on
>> > "(exporting-libraries #f)".  Is that likely from the same problem or a
>> > different one (like a different defmodule problem elsewhere)?
>>
>> That's likely a `defproc' (or `defthing', etc.) inside a section that
>> doesn't have a `defmodule' (either in the immediate section or an
>> enclosing section).
>>
>> > Second question: I am including (require (for-label (planet
>> > ../science-with-graphics.ss")) in each of the scribble files, but I'm
>> not
>> > sure it it's necessary if I have the defmodules.  I assume it is used to
>> > resolve references for hyperlinking, but do the defprocs, etc provide
>> the
>> > same information?
>>
>> You need both, currently. The `defmodule's determine the hyperlink
>> bindings created the `defproc's, etc. The `require .... for-label's
>> determine uses of identifiers to be hyperlinked. The same bit of text
>> naming a function in a `defproc' both serves as a hyperlink target and
>> is hyperlinked to itself. (Of course, hyperlinking to itself isn't
>> really useful, but by "hyperlink" in this case I also mean getting the
>> right text style, such as blue versus bold black.)
>>
>> > And, I guess a related question:  in my defmodules I am using the planet
>> > reference, but I used the relative reference in the for-label.  It seems
>> > logical to me to do that since the defmodule renders into something the
>> user
>> > sees - and they know about the planet collection, while the for-label is
>> > internal to the scribble files and not visible to the user.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> > Does the planet
>> > deference in defmodule refer to the copy in the planet repository (on my
>> > machine) or to the source code being used to build it?  That is, do I
>> have
>> > to have already built a .plt and fileinjected it for the defmodule to
>> work?
>>
>> Yes, or you need to have a development link. This is definitely a place
>> to improve in the future.
>>
>> > One last question:  How can I include an appendix (or at least an
>> unnumbered
>> > section-include?  I have the GNU Free Documentation License I need to
>> > include with the documentation, but would rather it wasn't a numbered
>> > section.
>>
>> You can use `make-unnumbered-part'. There doesn't seem to be a style on
>> `section' (or anything like that) to write the start of an unnumbered
>> section more directly. We should add something, or maybe unnumberedness
>> should have been a style instead of a different structure type.
>>
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20080922/4e01fb48/attachment.html>