This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v1 02/36] Guile extension language: doc additions
- From: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo at gnu dot org>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:16:53 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 02/36] Guile extension language: doc additions
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52b9da59 dot 64ab440a dot 0b0b dot 7e1c at mx dot google dot com> <83ha9w68av dot fsf at gnu dot org> <87sit4kb1t dot fsf at gnu dot org>
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> +The optional @var{errors} argument is either @code{"strict"}
>>> +or @code{"replace"}. A value of @code{"strict"} corresponds to
>>> +Guile's @code{SCM_FAILED_CONVERSION_ERROR} and a value of @code{"replace"}
>>> +corresponds to Guile's @code{SCM_FAILED_CONVERSION_QUESTION_MARK}.
>>
>> Suggest a cross-reference to Guile documentation here.
>
> Agreed. Also, Guile talks of “conversion strategy” and “conversion
> error handler”, with values ‘error’, ‘substitute’, and ‘escape’ (at the
> Scheme level), and I’d recommend sticking to those names and terminology.
The values chosen were to be consistent with the python support.
OTOH I *do* like being more consistent with the particular extension
language at hand.
I've tentatively changes things to use "error" and "substitute".
Question: How about exporting the SCM_FAILED_CONVERSION_* constants
and using those instead?
E.g, (value->string foo #:errors SCM_FAILED_CONVERSION_ERROR) ?
I don't have a strong opinion either way.
Also, in the same spirit of naming things with preference to being
more consistent with the extension language at hand than being more
consistent across all extension languages, does anyone mind if I
rename the "guile-interactive" command to "guile-repl"?