Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?

[Keith Wright]

> From: Neil Jerram <address@hidden>
> 
>     Evan> Another possibility is renaming -- e.g., "scmi_" for "scm
>     Evan> internal".
> 
> Yes, but this is more compatibility pain for no benefit.

One of us may have not understood the suggestion.  Renaming
all scm_ functions to scmi_ would be pointless.  Renaming
only those that are most ugly, likely to change, or useless
for extending and embedding, would be a great benefit to
those who are trying to learn how to use it.  It would also
mean that you could change scmi_ functions without warning
with a clear conscience.  This assumes that about half of
functions would be renamed (to maximize entropy) and that
there would be some agreement on which ones they should be.

-- 
     -- Keith Wright  <address@hidden>

Programmer in Chief, Free Computer Shop <http://www.free-comp-shop.com>
         ---  Food, Shelter, Source code.  ---