Re: Snarf macros and Guile API

[Keisuke Nishida <kxn30 at po dot cwru dot edu>]

Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se> writes:

> > <Maintainer>
> > The snarf macros should not be considered as a part of the Guile API
> > proper.  We cannot assume that a Guile application author have access
> > to them.
> > </Maintainer>
> 
> Just a clarification:
> 
> The main point of this statement is the second sentence.  We should
> consider the snarf macros as an optional extension to the Guile API.
> Thus, an application writer can choose to use them, but should not be
> forced to use them.

Right.  There are two levels of API: low level API and high level API.
Low level API should be minimum and primitive, while high level API
should be convenient and optional.  I thought both snarf macros and
scm_create_hook belonged high level API of the same domain, so I felt
one was unnecessary.

Probably clarifying these two levels is helpful (and that's why Guile
has GH interface?), but distinguishing them too much tends to make
things more complex...  I think we can talk this later as you said.