Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h)

[Keisuke Nishida]

At Tue, 8 May 2001 09:20:27 +0200 (MEST),
Dirk Herrmann wrote:
> 
> My suggestion (unpolite and selfish as I am) is to get rid of the gh
> interface.  Sounds harsh, but as it has been claimed by others, the scm_
> interface has over time become very stable, too.  The lack of functions
> scm_car and friends is a special case that could easily be solved.
> 
> This is in contrast to what the manual says, that GH is the stable
> interface and guaranteed to stay and such.  Well, just another prove for
> the fact that you should avoid making guarantees for software.

What about renaming all public scm_ interface to gh_ and others to gl_?
Like:

  GH_DEFINE_PROCEDURE (gh_foo, ....)
  {
    return gl_foo_1 (...);
  }

  SCM
  gl_foo_1 (...)
  {
    ...
  }

This way you can express which functions are part of the official API.

I'd like to see Guile's API being more sophisticated, even if it
required lots of changes, before Guile becomes more popular.

Regards,
Keisuke