Re: GC rewrite, first version.

[Dirk Herrmann]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Rob Browning wrote:

> Han-Wen <address@hidden> 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