[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: abstracting Lisp strings - macro name convention?

From: Richard Stallman
Subject: Re: abstracting Lisp strings - macro name convention?
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 01:07:19 -0600 (MDT)

    > SMBP is too terse.  That won't be used so often
    > that we cannot afford a longer and more meaningful name.

    Okay, I'll use longer names.  Probably something like this set:

It may be good to use short names like SREF and SDATA for the commonly
used accessors.  They are used very often.  It wasn't the terseness of
the "S", but the terseness of the "MBP", that I see as undesirable.

    With a pervasive change like this, do you really want separate
    checkins for each file and detailed function-level change log and CVS
    log entries for everything affected?

No, there is no need.  It is sufficient to describe the changes
in the macros and then say "all references changed."

reply via email to

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