Re: Patch to make guile-gtk work with upcoming guile-1.4

["Greg J. Badros" <gjb at cs dot washington dot edu>]

Chris Cramer <crayc@kiwi.pyro.net> writes:

> On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 12:47:33AM +0200, Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
> > "Greg J. Badros" <gjb@cs.washington.edu> writes:
> > 
> > > I'd much prefer that this function not be depracated... notice all of
> > > the redundancies and potential maintenance headaches below.  People
> > > *will* cut and paste from one section to another, change the *_hook in
> > > the first line, and forget to change it in later lines, resulting in a
> > > hard-to-find and nasty bug.
> > 
> > I don't think this will cause much problems, and, actually, I think
> > the standard interface (scm_make_smob_type/scm_set_smob_xxx) is easier
> > to read and intuitively understand.
> 
> Doesn't make any sense to me... do people actually change the
> free/mark/etc functions for a smob on the fly?
> 
> Also, scm_make_smob_type_mfpe() is mentioned in doc/data-rep.texi, which is
> where I learned about it from. I had no idea it was 'nonstandard'.

The documentation mismatching Mikael's attitude is an artifact of my
having changed the SMOB interface and having written the documentation.
He did bring up his concerns with me then, but since I was putting in
the time (and still strongly believe that the _set_smob_xxx interface is 
bogus), I left the _mfpe version in and documented it (perhaps better
than the _set_smob_xxx stuff).

Greg