David Kastrup <[email protected]> writes: > Ian Hulin <[email protected]> writes: > >> On 29/12/11 11:13, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Comment #6 on issue 2149 by [email protected]: Patch: Creates >>> non-negative-integer? predicate. >>> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2149 >>> >>> I'll change it to whatever people think would be easiest - I really >>> have no preference, but I do think it's important to have a >>> user-friendly predicate if LilyPond is to use the box-integral >>> method to create vertical skylines for other objects. >> Why not call it /positive-integer?/ and state in the docstring it defines >> any integer i where i >= 0 as positive. >> Or if you want to stick to Guiles /positive?/, maybe use >> /positive-integer-or-zero?/. >> >> Predicate names seem to work better if they describe what they're >> testing for rather than what's being avoided. >> <Bad pun alert> >> It's better of they're positive . . . >> </Bad pun alert> > > Really, I would just use "count?" here and save "a positive integer or > zero" for the documentation string.
Or at least unsigned-integer? which is slightly less cumbersome. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
