[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?

From: Keith Wright
Subject: Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:08:55 -0400

> From: Neil Jerram <address@hidden>
>     Evan> Another possibility is renaming -- e.g., "scmi_" for "scm
>     Evan> internal".
> Yes, but this is more compatibility pain for no benefit.

One of us may have not understood the suggestion.  Renaming
all scm_ functions to scmi_ would be pointless.  Renaming
only those that are most ugly, likely to change, or useless
for extending and embedding, would be a great benefit to
those who are trying to learn how to use it.  It would also
mean that you could change scmi_ functions without warning
with a clear conscience.  This assumes that about half of
functions would be renamed (to maximize entropy) and that
there would be some agreement on which ones they should be.

     -- Keith Wright  <address@hidden>

Programmer in Chief, Free Computer Shop <>
         ---  Food, Shelter, Source code.  ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]