[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h)
From: |
Rob Browning |
Subject: |
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h) |
Date: |
03 May 2001 12:35:59 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 |
Martin Grabmueller <address@hidden> writes:
> If we wanted people to use GH, we would have to improve it a lot, but
> that would result in a second SCM interface. That would duplicate a
> lot of code. Also, I think that a lot of the SCM interface is pretty
> stable too, so using proceedures like scm_make_string or scm_cons is
> safe (wrt future compatibility) anyway.
And we can always (as someone mentioned) have a way of marking public
vs private bits.
However, I will say, after talking with Bill here for a bit, that the
*biggest* problem with the gh_ interface is probably just it's lack of
a clear mission statement. i.e. Why does it exist, and what is it
for?
* Is it the preferred interface?
* Is it the interface for all functions that are C oriented (i.e. have
C values as args/return values).
* Is it the "public interface"?
etc.
I think if we answer this question clearly, and document it, the rest
of the work needed will be fairly obvious.
Even if we just decided that the gh_ interface was the "official" one
and started adding a bunch of #defines to add the stable/useful scm_
functions to it, that would IMO be better than what we have now,
though, I'm not saying that's my preferred or the optimal solution.
--
Rob Browning <address@hidden> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930
- Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h), (continued)
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h), Chris Cramer, 2001/05/02
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h), Martin Grabmueller, 2001/05/02
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h), Neil Jerram, 2001/05/02
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h), Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/08