This is the mail archive of the guile@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the Guile project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Unwanted hook names (was Re: interface reductions)


"Greg J. Badros" <gjb@cs.washington.edu> writes:

> I still want hooks to have internal names.  For debugging (i.e., for
> the printable form of the hook object) it's incredibly useful

But the argument that the situation is the same for all Scheme objects
seems valid to me.  What makes hooks so special?

> but also for reflection -- e.g., code might want to instrument all
> of the hooks that have "window" in their name.  Relying on the
> bindings of an environment is not right because those are dynamic.
> There are static properties of a hook (e.g., where that hook is
> invoked) that we need some way to map back to given just the hook
> object itself.

This should be solved using other mechanisms of the language, not the
*name* of a thing.  You could, for example, have a list of all hooks
pertaining to windows.

> > Feel free to deprecate this part of a hook's functionality if you
> > want.
> 
> I'd prefer that it not get depracated.  As a point of comparison, does
> Emacs let hooks have names?

No, not in this sense.  In Emacs, a hook is a list.  It is bound to a
variable.   In this sense it has a name, but in the same sense, the
current Guile hooks have *two* names...

> Yes, pending.... (I now know it won't happen this weekend, but likely
> the following weekend).

:(

:)

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]