Re: feature request

[Michael Livshin]

Dirk Herrmann <address@hidden> writes:

> > This is  just because so many  people make the mistake  of copying the
> > POSIX convention.  They  see ``size_t'' and think, ``Oh,  that's not a
> > bad idea, I'll do that, too.''  It is a common mistake.
> 
> Well, it's only a mistake because of POSIX.  In our special situation,
> however, capitalization may be possible, but will probably look strance:
> 
> scm_Size, scm_Ulong, scm_Bits etc.
> 
> We _could_ use such a convention.  But, do we want to?  Is there another
> suggestion for uniform type naming in guile?

are we *really* afraid of that POSIX rule?

I mean, what is the likelyhood of standard POSIX types having *both*
the prefix `scm_' and suffix '_t'?

are there going to be new revisions of the POSIX spec with significant
added functionality?

I'm not very afraid of it, in short.

[ I'm not exactly in love with the '_t' convention, either, for that
  matter.  but uniformity is good. ]

-- 
Portions of this broadcast have been prerecorded.