More direct question about naming issues for GOOPS based module APIs.

* More direct question about naming issues for GOOPS based module APIs.
@ 2004-05-13  6:47 Rob Browning
  2004-05-13 19:51 ` Rob Browning
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Rob Browning @ 2004-05-13  6:47 UTC (permalink / raw)

Given that I'm relatively new to GOOPS (though fairly knowledgable wrt
CLOS), I'd just like to ask directly: what do people feel are the
relevant considerations when choosing the exported names for a GOOPS
based module?

For example, although *I* tend to be comfortable with longer function
names like gw-argument-types, gw-typespec, or even all-gw-types, when
a module uses GOOPS, one could (and people have) made the argument
that

  (all-gw-types my-typespec)

is just unnecessarily verbose as compared to

  (all-types my-typespec)

because GOOPS dispatches on the class of my-typespec.  One could
further argue that as long as you're careful with your argument names,
you end up with code that's equally readable in either case.
(Although I would still be concerned that with the latter approach, it
may be much more difficult to locate all calls to a given method,
i.e. "fgrep '(close' *" vs "fgrep '(close-wrapset' *".

As further examples, I wasn't sure about were exactly what the risks
are with respect to import collisions, say between a module's exported
generics and the existing bindings of the importer, nor what the risks
are, if any, regarding accidental shadowing, etc.

I'd also be interested in any stylistic opinions.

Thanks

-- 
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://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread