[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?
From: |
Evan Prodromou |
Subject: |
Re: To gh_ or not to gh_? |
Date: |
10 May 2001 12:50:20 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.0.103 |
>>>>> "RB" == Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:
RB> One thing that we've been discussing on guile-devel is, at a
RB> minimum, starting to hide all the scm_ functions that are
RB> considered "private" by default, either with private headers,
RB> or more likely with a #define SCM_INTERNAL or similar. This
RB> would help make it clear which of the scm_ functions are
RB> intended for public consumption.
Another possibility is renaming -- e.g., "scmi_" for "scm internal".
~ESP
--
Evan Prodromou
address@hidden
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, (continued)
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Bobby D. Bryant, 2001/05/04
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Neil Jerram, 2001/05/05
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/05
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Keith Wright, 2001/05/07
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Bill Gribble, 2001/05/07
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?,
Evan Prodromou <=
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Neil Jerram, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Keith Wright, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/05/12
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Sam Tregar, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Sam Tregar, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/05/12
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Jeff Read, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Sam Tregar, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Ken Fox, 2001/05/11