Re: Do we have to worry about the names of generic functions?

[Andreas Rottmann]

Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:

> Andreas Rottmann <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Yes, but when the non-generic are procedures, you can "upgrade" them:
>>
>> (define quit (ensure-generic quit))
>
> Hmm, but since you really don't know about all the other modules out
> there, it seems like the safest thing when using really general names
> might be to do this for all of your exported generics.  Although that
> feels a bit crufty, and I presume still doesn't protect you from
> exports that aren't a procedure or a method.
>
You'd only do the above when you *know* a module imported has
e.g. "quit". You can't do much about stuff in modules you don't
import; I wonder what "#:generics merge" does when it encounters a
procedure and generic that have the same name...

That aside, another reason I think prefixes are basically unecessary
is that the importer can always do something like 

(use-modules ((g-wrap) #:renamer (symbol-prefix-proc 'gw:)))

if he insists on prefixed names. You could do something even more
fancy like prefixing only the non-class symbols (i.e. those not like
<FOO>).

Andy
-- 
Andreas Rottmann         | address@hidden      | address@hidden | address@hidden
http://yi.org/rotty      | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62

Make free software, not war!