[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?
From: |
Lars J. Aas |
Subject: |
Re: To gh_ or not to gh_? |
Date: |
Mon, 14 May 2001 12:42:07 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 04:19:07AM +0200, Marius Vollmer wrote:
: "Lars J. Aas" <address@hidden> writes:
: > I come from the school where the thinking is that internal functions
: > shouldn't be present in public (installed) header files at all.
:
: I wouldn't want to have non-installed header files. I agree that it
: would be an improvement to distinguish between different levels of the
: Guile API, in the sense that features that are more difficult to use
: right are on lower levels and that users know which level a certain
: feature belongs to. But I, at least, don't want to shut them off from
: the lower levels with technical measures that are difficult to
: circumvent.
I assume this is a vote against the SCM_INTERNAL scheme too then?
Lars J
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, (continued)
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Jürgen A. Erhard, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/12
- more on continuations, Bill Schottstaedt, 2001/05/12
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/12
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/05/13
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?,
Lars J. Aas <=
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/14
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/05/14
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Neil Jerram, 2001/05/14
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/14
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/05/15
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Neil Jerram, 2001/05/15
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/05/16
RE: To gh_ or not to gh_?, John Fitzgerald, 2001/05/11
RE: To gh_ or not to gh_?, John Fitzgerald, 2001/05/13