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

[Marius Vollmer]

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.

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405