Re: [PATCH, doc RFA] Add guile gdb parameter support

[ludo at gnu dot org (Ludovic CourtÃs)]

Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com> skribis:

> + guile-user for more eyes
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Ludovic CourtÃs <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Hi, Doug,
>>
>> Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com> skribis:
>>
>>> +@deffn {Scheme Procedure} parameter? object
>>> +Return @code{#t} if @var{object} is a @code{<gdb:parameter>} object.
>>> +Otherwise return @code{#f}.
>>> +@end deffn
>>
>> Thereâs the problem that in Guile âparametersâ are something different,
>> and âparameter?â is already provided by core Guile (info "(guile)
>> Parameters").
>>
>> Unless âparameterâ is the official (public) name for this in GDB, Iâd
>> recommend using a different name in the API, perhaps âknobâ or something
>> like that.  WDYT?
>
> "parameters" is what the python side calls them, I think the name in
> gdb is pretty concrete.
> Not entirely so, but using a different name isn't without its own problems.

Yes, surely.

> fwiw, and I know a lot don't like this approach,
> but I personally intend to always import the gdb module with a gdb: prefix.

Yes.

[...]

> But I'd also like to hear your thoughts on the general solution of
> just saying the convention is to important the gdb module with a gdb:
> prefix.

I generally agree with the idea that name clashes are best handled via
module renamers.

I also think itâs convenient when obvious name clashes are avoided
altogether.  For instance, at the GDB prompt, itâs easier if you just
have to type âguile (use-modules (gdb))â instead of the longer thing.

So Iâd really consider name issues on a case-by-case basis.

Back to this particular case, if the Python API already uses the term
âparameterâ, thatâs probably enough to argue that the Guile API should
use that name as well.

Thanks,
Ludoâ.