New Issue: Document 'isXValue' functions in the Types module, (or implement alternatives?)

17644, "e-kayrakli", "Document 'isXValue' functions in the Types module, (or implement alternatives?)", "2021-05-05T23:41:34Z"

This has spun off from Should type and non-type "overloads" of functions in the Types module have the same names? · Issue #17642 · chapel-lang/chapel · GitHub

We have functions like isBoolValue (alongside isBool and isBoolType) in the Types module, but they are no-doc'ed. I think we should document them.

The reason they are no-doc'ed goes back to Provide uniform isXxx functions in the standard modules. by vasslitvinov · Pull Request #212 · chapel-lang/chapel · GitHub. But @bradcray sounded more OK with adding them to the interface today here: Should type and non-type "overloads" of functions in the Types module have the same names? · Issue #17642 · chapel-lang/chapel · GitHub. Just to echo some of his thoughts under both comments, I see some value in differentiating params/literals from variables. But isBoolValue(x) && isParam(x) etc. feels expressive and concise enough to me.