Re: feature request

[Marius Vollmer]

"Jacques A. Vidrine" <address@hidden> writes:

> I guess I'll repeat this here: some type names are reserved by
> POSIX, including those that end in `_t'.  I'd quote from POSIX
> 1003.1-1996, but I'm not at home at the moment to put my hands on
> it.  If you have the draft POSIX 1003.1-200x, see XSH sec 2.2 Name
> Space, line 638.
> 
> I don't necessarily advocate sweeping the tree and removing the `_t'
> type names, but I don't think we should be adding new ones.

We should have uniformity in our naming conventions, even if that
means renaming them.  libguile is unusual in that its type definitions
are not that much used by client code, with the expeption of "SCM",
which does not have the "_t" wart.

One reason I can see for identifiers that name types to be visually
distinct from other identifiers is that type identifiers have
syntactic significance in C.  I'm not sure whether that is a good
reason, tho.

While I don't fear name clashes because of our use of "_t", I think we
should move away from it.

What about using a "scm_t_" prefix?