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]

Unwanted hook names (was Re: interface reductions)


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

> > > >   SCM_HOOK_NAME
> > 
> > This is not actually related to the question of whether this macro
> > should be deprecated, but:  Does it make sense to have objects with
> > names?  If we think of a name being an essential part of a hook, then it
> > is OK to provide functions for accessing it.  But, I don't think that
> > hooks should have a name.  Otherwise, you could give names to any kind of
> > scheme object, like cells with names :-)
> 
> Personally, I agree.  I think this was added because the SCWM people
> claimed that it was good for debugging if hooks have names.

Oops!  This is not fair.

I just looked at my personal archive and discovered that it comes from
me.  I apologize for coming up with such a bad idea.  :(

Feel free to deprecate this part of a hook's functionality if you
want.

We still need to easily be able to create a binding for a hook from a
C application, though.  Currently this is made by `scm_create_hook',
but that interface needs to be updated when we have merged Jost's
environments.  (This is actually pending now.)

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