[plt-scheme] Some More Scribble Questions

I think that I added natural-number/c a very long time ago and Matthew
added exact-nonnegative-integer? at some point when he was adding
contracts to various primitives and probably just neither of us
noticed that they are the same thing. Probably the thing to do is to
get rid of one of them.

Robby

On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Doug Williams
<m.douglas.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>
>
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>
>