Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?

[Neil Jerram]

>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Tregar <address@hidden> writes:

    Sam> On Fri, 4 May 2001, Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

    >> Let's don't pretend I'm an expert, but FWIW I think you'll find
    >> that you can use gh_ for the core of your interface, and then
    >> add in some additional scm_ stuff if you want to support more
    >> functionality.

    Sam> That sounds like a good approach.  My only fear about that
    Sam> was the ominously empty section of the in-progress docs
    Sam> titled something like "Combining gh_ and scm_ calls".  It
    Sam> made me think maybe that wasn't such a good idea.

I don't think there's anything to worry about here.  You can happily
start with GH and then add bits of SCM as you need to.

By the way, if you discover problems with the GH/SCM documentation,
please point them out -- and, even better, send a proposed patch.
This is an area where we are actively trying to stamp out any
remaining problems.

        Neil