From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dirk Herrmann Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: GC rewrite, first version. Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:11:48 +0200 (CEST) Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <871y9n3ixa.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1027973513 18135 127.0.0.1 (29 Jul 2002 20:11:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 20:11:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: hanwen@cs.uu.nl, guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17ZGrw-0004iO-00 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:11:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17ZGsF-0004BU-00; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:12:11 -0400 Original-Received: from sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de ([134.169.132.52]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17ZGrz-0004AV-00 for ; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 16:11:55 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (dirk@localhost) by sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA25602; Mon, 29 Jul 2002 22:11:49 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Rob Browning In-Reply-To: <871y9n3ixa.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:884 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:884 On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Rob Browning wrote: > Han-Wen writes: > > > * I've split gc.c in a lot of files, and a private header file. The > > formerly static functions are now exported, but with the scm_ prefix > > > > I think the prefix scm_i_ is utterly unreadable. I decided against > > using it. The header file is not `exported' so that should make it > > clear that the structures are internal. > > I believe there was a discussion about this a while back, and although > I'm fine with the idea of private headers (in fact, I tend to think > that from the end-user's perspective they may be a bit cleaner), that > wasn't the consensus. People preferred the scm_i_ approach. > > So while in general I'm not conceptually opposed to private headers > instead of the scm_i_ prefix, I think whatever we do we should do it > consistently. The problem with private headers is, that sometimes you like to introduce some macros / function references which themselves are not part of the API, but which you need to implement some macros (or - in the not too far future - inline functions) that are part of the API. This, however, means that these have to be part of the public headers. This is one of the reasons we decided for the scm_i_ and SCM_I_ prefixes. Best regards, Dirk _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel