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