Re: GC rewrite, first version.

From: Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net>
Cc: Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>,
	Dirk Herrmann <dirk@sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de>,
	guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: GC rewrite, first version.
Date: 31 Jul 2002 19:46:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3sn1zvipl.fsf@laruns.ossau.uklinux.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15685.48166.358219.226421@blauw.xs4all.nl>

>>>>> "Han-Wen" == Han-Wen  <hanwen@cs.uu.nl> writes:

    Han-Wen> rlb@defaultvalue.org writes:
    >> Dirk Herrmann <dirk@sallust.ida.ing.tu-bs.de> writes:
    >> 
    >> > 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.
    >> 
    >> Oh right -- thanks -- I remember that now.  That was a pretty good
    >> reason :>

    Han-Wen> Well, if any of the private GC move to public headers,  we can always
    Han-Wen> insert the I. 

It's not only about what you can see in which header files.  It's
about clearly identifying which of the exports from the libguile
library are intended for application developers' use, and which are
internal.  This then helps (or will help) us to check that we've
documented everything that should be documented, and that we've
described everything that has changed between releases.

Since we spent some time discussing this and agreeing it on the list,
could you not just go along with it?

(I believe this is the point where an American would say "Sheesh.")

        Neil

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