Re: deeper constification

[Dirk Herrmann <dirk at ida dot ing dot tu-bs dot de>]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Clark McGrew wrote:

> set-cdr!            vector-set!
> scm_set_cdr_x       scm_vector_set_x
> SCM_SET_CDR	    SCM_SET_VECTOR

I'd rather go for SCM_SET_VECTOR_ELEMENT, because it's not the vector
itself that is set, in contrast to, for example, SCM_SET_CDR.  This
difference may also be the reason why the scheme primitive is not called
set-vector!.  If that name is too long, we could say SCM_SET_VECTOR_FIELD
which saves us two characters :-)

However, we are facing the problem that the macro naming scheme is in any
case somewhat inconsistent:

SCM_MAKE_<type>  should deliver a SCM value, while
SCM_<type>       is supposed to make a C value from a SCM value.

So what about SCM_STRING and SCM_MAKE_STRING?  OK, these macros do not
exist, but what would they mean if they did?  SCM_STRING could be the
equivalent of scm_string, but this is not allowed, since SCM_STRING
should deliver a C value.  If, instead SCM_STRING was actually just
reporting the C value, then we could use SCM_MAKE_STRING to construct the
scheme value - if not there were also a scm_make_string primitive.

If the naming scheme is consistent in itself, it may still be confusing
due to differences to the scheme and C function level :-(

I think currently there is not yet 'the' perfect solution found.

Best regards
Dirk Herrmann