Re: Name of scm_definedp not consistend with rest of names.

[Dirk Herrmann]

On 16 Sep 2002, Marius Vollmer wrote:

> P Pareit <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Should scm_definedp() not better be called scm_defined_p() ?
> 
> Well.  The Lisp tradition is, iirr, that names that are one component
> get the "p" without an intervening dash, and names that are more than
> one component get the dash.  That is, it would be "foop", but
> "small-foo-p".  One could argue that scm_definedp has two components,
> or one could argue that the "scm_" prefix doesn't count...
> 
> But as you say, consistency with the rest is more important.  But
> backwards compatability is also important.
> 
> I'd say it's OK to leave the names as it is.

I'd say introduce scm_defined_p for consistency, but keep the old version
as deprecated for some time.  We don't have to get rid of it soon.  This
could for example be scheduled for guile 2.0.  Then, you have both
consistency and backwards compatibility.

Best regards
Dirk Herrmann