This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Names in libguile
- To: Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj at mdj dot nada dot kth dot se>
- Subject: Re: Names in libguile
- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at eazel dot com>
- Date: 19 Mar 2000 09:32:03 -0800
- Cc: Dirk Herrmann <dirk at ida dot ing dot tu-bs dot de>, "Greg J. Badros" <gjb at cs dot washington dot edu>, Mikael Djurfeldt <djurfeldt at nada dot kth dot se>, guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0003171837540.1999-100000@marvin.ida.ing.tu-bs.de> <xy77lf1ywu4.fsf@mdj.nada.kth.se>
Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se> writes:
> Dirk Herrmann <dirk@ida.ing.tu-bs.de> writes:
>
> > How do scheme-level names translate if there are macros that do the
> > same thing? set-car! --> SCM_SETCAR, thus, the '!' is dropped and the
> > intermediate '-' is dropped. However, this is not done
> > consistently: sometimes intermediate '-' are _not_ dropped.
>
> The translation scheme is only valid for Scheme primitives. Each
> Scheme primitive corresponds to a C function which implements it.
> I think we can handle other cases without policy.
>
> > I would prefer if both worlds (functions/variables and macros) were using
> > similar schemes as far as possible. (I even dislike the _P/P
> > distinction, but I know that I am strange :-)
>
> Certainly _P is simpler, but then, Helvetica is simpler and more
> consistent than Times Roman and the latter is much more readable in
> the long run.
>
> Code should be pretty and easy to read, not only simple and
> consistent. (Besides, the _P/P *is* 100% consistent, just a little
> bit complex.)
I think it would still be nice for macro names to be consistent with
function names. In any case, I don't see why SCM_NULLP is supposed to
be a gain in readability above SCM_NULL_P, but scm_nullp is inferior
to scm_null_p.
- Maciej