Revert "Fix interface."
Revert "Add more scribble forms that evaluate code and display the results."
This reverts commit a621eaf041.
This reverts commit 7e9dbded4c.
by default; a new optional argument restores the old behavior
(but the default behavior is consistent with the old docs and with
the vast majority of existing uses)
The implementation is ugly for performance reasons. A new primitive
`prop:arity-incomplete' property determines when to return #f for
`procedure-arity-includes?' in default mode. A nicer implementation
would be to redefine `procedure-arity-includes?' at the kw-proc level,
but the bytecode optimizer's and JIT's treatment of the built-in
`procedure-arity-includes?' is important. The implementation choice
could be revisited after cross-module inlining is implemented.
Closes PR 11978
The new version fixes some problems with the previous one, most notably
it can create a keyworded function when the last input is is keyworded.
`compose1' is a restricted variant that requires single values in the
composed pipeline -- besides being potentially faster (probably more
if/when there is cross module inlining), it has a semantical
justification, similar to the restricting function call arguments to
return single values, with similar robustness benefits. The
implementation of both is done in a generalized way, and the results can
be faster for both `compose' and `compose1'. (Not by much -- 20% and
30% resp.)
One thing that it could do is to reduce the resulting arity to match the
last given function. I didn't do this since it adds a significant
overhead to the result. (No strong opinion on doing that...)
Actually, the new `thunk' is a nullary function, which I think is very
popular expectation for the name. Since there are possible uses for the
any-arity version, it's added too, as `thunk*'.
because the previous documentation didn't actually define the form;
the examples were good, but epecting a reader to infer meaning
from examples wasn't good enough. The use of a `module-path?' contract
in the old docs wasn't appropriate; contracts apply to values, while
grammar productions should be used to document syntax constraints.
Also, `module-path?' was too permissive (only literal strings and
identifiers are actually allowed), while the actual syntax allows
either a single path or a sequence.
This makes it correspond to the license page we have on downloads that
talks about the "lesser" GPL rather than the "library" one.
Also, change the file name to have a more friendly .txt suffix, and add
some more responsible properties for things in doc/release-notes.
