Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?

[Bill Gribble]

On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 12:20:14AM -0400, Keith Wright wrote:
> I had hoped that if gh_ was "neglected" it was because it was
> substantially complete and most people were using it happily.

It's not even close to complete.  Gnucash relies on Guile heavily, and
there's a lot of Gnucash C code whose purpose in life is to deal with
Guile.  We could not do most of the stuff we need to do if the gh_
interface was the only thing available; you don't have access to half
the things you need.  

gh_ basically gets you to and from C data types, but if you want to do
anything other than call a user-defined scheme function from C it
doesn't help much.  You can't reasonably construct and operate on
Scheme data from C without going to the scm_ interface.

Actually I've thought that the gh_ interface should be renamed to
remove the implication that it's "high level" and reduced/repurposed
to just be the interface between C and SCM data types.  If the
function signature is all SCM objects, there's no reason not to use
the scm_ equivalent.

b.g.