This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Unwanted hook names (was Re: interface reductions)
- To: Michael Livshin <mlivshin at bigfoot dot com>
- Subject: Re: Unwanted hook names (was Re: interface reductions)
- From: "Greg J. Badros" <gjb at cs dot washington dot edu>
- Date: 25 May 2000 09:09:58 -0700
- Cc: Dirk Herrmann <dirk at ida dot ing dot tu-bs dot de>, Miroslav Silovic <silovic at zesoi dot fer dot hr>, Guile Mailing List <guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>, djurfeldt at nada dot kth dot se
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0005251736360.5213-100000@marvin.ida.ing.tu-bs.de> <s3wvkityoq.fsf@bigfoot.com>
Michael Livshin <mlivshin@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Dirk Herrmann <dirk@ida.ing.tu-bs.de> writes:
>
> > On 25 May 2000, Miroslav Silovic wrote:
> >
> > > Or set them as a property (a systsem that is already in place and
> > > (hopefully) tested :) ).
> >
> > That's probably the best way to do it. However, we still could provide
> > convenience functions for the C level, since the functions that are
> > provided in objprop.[ch] only accept SCM values:
> > extern SCM scm_object_property (SCM obj, SCM key);
> > extern SCM scm_set_object_property_x (SCM obj, SCM key, SCM val);
>
> that's the best way to do it, provided it's explicitly documented
> (i.e. it's documented that `scm_object_name' returns the property
> `name'), or else there bound to be surprises.
This sounds fine to me, and then the scm_create_hook will still take a
name and just set the property if the name argument is non-null.
<snip>
Greg