Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?

[Dirk Herrmann]

On Fri, 11 May 2001, Keith Wright wrote:

> > From: Neil Jerram <address@hidden>
> > 
> >     Evan> Another possibility is renaming -- e.g., "scmi_" for "scm
> >     Evan> internal".
> > 
> > Yes, but this is more compatibility pain for no benefit.
> 
> One of us may have not understood the suggestion.  Renaming
> all scm_ functions to scmi_ would be pointless.  Renaming
> only those that are most ugly, likely to change, or useless
> for extending and embedding, would be a great benefit to
> those who are trying to learn how to use it.  It would also
> mean that you could change scmi_ functions without warning
> with a clear conscience.  This assumes that about half of
> functions would be renamed (to maximize entropy) and that
> there would be some agreement on which ones they should be.

Some time ago we have agree to use scm_i_ and SCM_I_ as the
corresponding prefixes.  A couple of functions already use this
convention.

Best regards,
Dirk Herrmann