Manual reorganized

Manual reorganized

[Marius Vollmer]

Hi,

I have reorganized the Guile Reference Manual to a large degree,
because I felt I had to. :)

I hope the structure is now simpler and that feels more complete now
(although not much new stuff has been added.)

I will continue to work on it in the next days, looking for typos,
maybe writing new stuff, etc, maybe reorganizing the texi source files
as wells.  So if you have any uncomitted changes to the manual, please
merge them now.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Manual reorganized

[Kevin Ryde]

Did the docs for scm_truncate and scm_round (ie. the C "double" funcs)
get lost in this?


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Manual reorganized

[Marius Vollmer]

Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> writes:

> Did the docs for scm_truncate and scm_round (ie. the C "double" funcs)
> get lost in this?

I don't think so, although they are not there any longer.  What do you
propose, should we document them.  What is their use?

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


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Manual reorganized

[Kevin Ryde]

Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.de> writes:
>
> What do you
> propose, should we document them.

They're in the 1.6 manual, and I think I added some words to them.

> What is their use?

C "double" funcs corresponding to scheme level round and truncate.

(There's a comment in the code about them being badly named, but it'd
be incompatible to change that now.)


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Manual reorganized

[Marius Vollmer]

Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> writes:

> Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.de> writes:
>>
>> What do you
>> propose, should we document them.
>
> They're in the 1.6 manual, and I think I added some words to them.
>
>> What is their use?
>
> C "double" funcs corresponding to scheme level round and truncate.
>
> (There's a comment in the code about them being badly named, but it'd
> be incompatible to change that now.)

So what about deprecating them and providing scm_c_round and
scm_c_truncate so that we can eventually use the names scm_round and
scm_truncate for the C version of the Scheme procedures round and
truncate?  I think that would be the Right Thing.

I will do this.

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


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Manual reorganized

[Kevin Ryde]

Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.de> writes:
>
> So what about deprecating them and providing scm_c_round and
> scm_c_truncate so that we can eventually use the names scm_round and
> scm_truncate for the C version of the Scheme procedures round and
> truncate?  I think that would be the Right Thing.

I would leave them as they are.  The names are unfortunate, but not
actively harmful.  Transitions, no matter how long they're spread
over, are always painful and I'd think not worth it in this case.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Manual reorganized

[Marius Vollmer]

Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> writes:

> Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.de> writes:
>>
>> So what about deprecating them and providing scm_c_round and
>> scm_c_truncate so that we can eventually use the names scm_round and
>> scm_truncate for the C version of the Scheme procedures round and
>> truncate?  I think that would be the Right Thing.
>
> I would leave them as they are.  The names are unfortunate, but not
> actively harmful.  Transitions, no matter how long they're spread
> over, are always painful and I'd think not worth it in this case.

Yeah, right, I can be a bit deprecation-happy at times... but I still
think we should remove this wart: one can even argue that the names
are somewhat harmful since users might expect the C version of Scheme
'round' to be called 'scm_round'.  This works for nearly any other
function (and should ideally work for every function that has a C
version), but doesn't for 'round'.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel