From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rob Browning Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Text collation Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:31:35 -0700 Message-ID: <878xj4kx9k.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org> References: <877j00cirs.fsf@laas.fr> <87hcz3mqhr.fsf@zip.com.au> <87r6x0qjyy.fsf@laas.fr> <877iyrbxj7.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org> <87wt6rxy6z.fsf@laas.fr> <87ac3m2joj.fsf@raven.defaultvalue.org> <87k62otewl.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1161804743 24146 80.91.229.2 (25 Oct 2006 19:32:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:32:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Guile-Devel Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 25 21:32:19 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GcoTY-00077m-St for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:31:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GcoTY-0001wR-6j for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:31:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GcoTS-0001uU-BN for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:31:38 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1GcoTQ-0001rW-TS for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:31:37 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GcoTQ-0001rE-Jk for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:31:36 -0400 Original-Received: from [70.85.129.156] (helo=defaultvalue.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1GcoTQ-0004Zx-Dd for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:31:36 -0400 Original-Received: from omen.defaultvalue.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A0D890DDF; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:31:35 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from raven.defaultvalue.org (raven.defaultvalue.org [192.168.1.7]) by omen.defaultvalue.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D9E634004; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:31:35 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by raven.defaultvalue.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 35B7835511F; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:31:35 -0700 (PDT) Original-To: Neil Jerram In-Reply-To: <87k62otewl.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> (Neil Jerram's message of "Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:43:22 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:6184 Archived-At: Neil Jerram writes: >> Also, you definitely can't judge by the presence or lack of >> documentation. Guile's documentation has often taken a while to >> catch up with the code. > > I'm not sure I agree with that. I accept that documentation can > sometimes take a while to catch up (although it shouldn't, and > recently I think we've all been pretty good about writing doc at the > same time as developing something), but in principle I think > "presence in the manual" is a better way of indicating to users > whether an API is officially supported than a coding convention. Well, if that's how we want to proceed, then I think we need to be very clear about it. My understanding has been that we promse that as a default, any C feature that's prefixed with scm_ instead of scm_i_ is fair game for the C programmer and that they can expect us to maintain it going forward (plus or minus deprecation, *major* (i.e. 2.0) releases, etc.). In the past (at least), this was important because there were a lot of things not mentioned in the documentation. Further, as with the SRFI code, the automatic documentation mechanism hasn't included the C documentation, even when it exists, and even if our documentation becomes (has become) more or less comprehensive, I still feel like the scm_ vs scm_i_ convention is a good one. -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel