This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: deeper constification
- To: Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj at mdj dot nada dot kth dot se>
- Subject: Re: deeper constification
- From: Michael Livshin <mlivshin at bigfoot dot com>
- Date: 30 Mar 2000 14:28:10 +0200
- Cc: Dirk Herrmann <dirk at ida dot ing dot tu-bs dot de>, Michael Livshin <mlivshin at bigfoot dot com>, guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, djurfeldt at nada dot kth dot se
- Organization: who? me?
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0003301135130.20677-100000@marvin.ida.ing.tu-bs.de> <xy73dp8lkgr.fsf@mdj.nada.kth.se>
Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se> writes:
> > If SCM_VECTOR_REF/SET will actually perform the equivalent to vector-ref
> > and vector-set!, then I'm in favor of these. Otherwise, the names should
> > be different in order to avoid confusion.
> >
> > Although these names do not match the suggested style to put the SET at
> > the front of the identifier it may be better to keep them aligned to the
> > scheme level names.
>
> I agree with Dirk.
>
> Just a question: If we're making an exception from the naming
> convention in order to be consistent with Scheme, how do you feel
> about the fact that we're anyway not using the Scheme name translation
> convention? (SCM_VECTOR_SET vs SCM_VECTOR_SET_X)
I'd say if we are to translate, then let's translate. so
SCM_VECTOR_SET_X seems to be the best choice.
but in general, having both SET and _X in one name seems verbose.
hmm... is there any agreement wrt macro names obeying the same rules
as function names?
--
REALITY is an illusion that stays put.