Name of scm_definedp not consistend with rest of names.

Name of scm_definedp not consistend with rest of names.

[P Pareit]

Hey,

Should scm_definedp() not better be called scm_defined_p() ?

pieter;


_______________________________________________
Bug-guile mailing list
Bug-guile@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile

Re: Name of scm_definedp not consistend with rest of names.

[Marius Vollmer]

P Pareit <pieter.pareit@planetinternet.be> writes:

> Should scm_definedp() not better be called scm_defined_p() ?

Well.  The Lisp tradition is, iirr, that names that are one component
get the "p" without an intervening dash, and names that are more than
one component get the dash.  That is, it would be "foop", but
"small-foo-p".  One could argue that scm_definedp has two components,
or one could argue that the "scm_" prefix doesn't count...

But as you say, consistency with the rest is more important.  But
backwards compatability is also important.

I'd say it's OK to leave the names as it is.

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405


_______________________________________________
Bug-guile mailing list
Bug-guile@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile

Re: Name of scm_definedp not consistend with rest of names.

[Dirk Herrmann]

On 16 Sep 2002, Marius Vollmer wrote:

> P Pareit <pieter.pareit@planetinternet.be> writes:
> 
> > Should scm_definedp() not better be called scm_defined_p() ?
> 
> Well.  The Lisp tradition is, iirr, that names that are one component
> get the "p" without an intervening dash, and names that are more than
> one component get the dash.  That is, it would be "foop", but
> "small-foo-p".  One could argue that scm_definedp has two components,
> or one could argue that the "scm_" prefix doesn't count...
> 
> But as you say, consistency with the rest is more important.  But
> backwards compatability is also important.
> 
> I'd say it's OK to leave the names as it is.

I'd say introduce scm_defined_p for consistency, but keep the old version
as deprecated for some time.  We don't have to get rid of it soon.  This
could for example be scheduled for guile 2.0.  Then, you have both
consistency and backwards compatibility.

Best regards
Dirk Herrmann



_______________________________________________
Bug-guile mailing list
Bug-guile@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile

Re: Name of scm_definedp not consistend with rest of names.

[Marius Vollmer]

Dirk Herrmann <dirk@ida.ing.tu-bs.de> writes:

> I'd say introduce scm_defined_p for consistency, but keep the old version
> as deprecated for some time.  We don't have to get rid of it soon.  This
> could for example be scheduled for guile 2.0.  Then, you have both
> consistency and backwards compatibility.

Yes.

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405


_______________________________________________
Bug-guile mailing list
Bug-guile@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guile