[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Naming conventions of conversion routines

From: Marius Vollmer
Subject: Re: Naming conventions of conversion routines
Date: 02 Jun 2003 00:20:59 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3

"Daschbach, John L" <address@hidden> writes:

> I have been working to upgrade my guile C code to the new "scm_*"
> routines from the "gh_*" routines.  The new naming convention is
> more confusing than the gh convention.  Does anyone else find this
> so, and should it be changed?

Yes, yes.  We are not yet ready to replace the gh_ API with an equally
elegant scm_* API.

I agree that the conversion routines between C types and Scheme types
are a very important part of Guile.  They should be complete,
consistent, easy to use correctly, beautiful on the eyes, etc.

> Why is the new system inconsistent when the old one was not?  

Because, in reality, what you think of as the new system, is actually
the very old one, the one that the gh_* API improved upon.  You are
right that gh_ is better in places than the scm_ functions, but since
you can't get far without scm_ functions anyway, we thought it would
be confusing to have two API and decided to remove the gh_ interface
eventually.  But as you say, it still shines brighter than the scm_
API, in places.

> Is the use of guile as a wrapper for C code being depreceated?

No, no.  Things are just moving much slower than one might like...

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

reply via email to

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