Re: proposal: scm_string2str() and scm_symbol2str()

[stefan]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:

>    From: stefan <address@hidden>
>    Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 13:44:21 +0100 (CET)
> 
>    Please tell me if I can continue to implement these function.  I can
>    check it directly into CVS.
> 
> well, no one can physically stop you now.  :->
> 
> here's my meta-proposal: let's run our development a little more
> carefully by first checking in proposals (in whatever level of detail is
> appropriate) somewhere under subdirectroy "devel", and then pointing
> people there.  this is actually easier than posting to a mailing list.
> 
> subsequent discussion may motivate changes to the proposal, but because
> the changes are public and proposals nicely versioned, discussion has
> less tendency to mire down or loop infinitely.  i used to suggest
> newcomers to read the archives, since that's what i was doing, but
> that's hugely inefficient.  we need to break this cycle of self-abuse!

Hm.  But this is *really' why I asked.  I want to know if you are pleased
with the proposal or not, and if not, tell me why and how to do it
correctly:

So my actual questions are:

 * Do you like the names of the functions? Maybe they should be named
   scm_c_*() instead of scm_*().
 * Do they make sense?
 * Should we provide something like scm_c_free() for pointers returned by
   these kind of functions?

Thanks in advance,
        address@hidden