This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Scwm docstrings change
mstachow@alum.mit.edu writes:
> "Greg J. Badros" wrote:
> >
>
> > I am unconvinced. The average C programmer shouldn't be reading the
> > Guile source anyway. It's far more important that the invariants
> > between the two parts be clearly intimately tied (and statically
> > checked, though separating them would only complicate, not eliminate,
> > the static checking that scwmdoc does).
>
> I don't think the checks are bad (as I said below). However, I don't
> think making the checking slightly more difficult is a higher cost
> than making the code even a bit less clear.
um. while we are at it, while not have both options available? they
both make sense, you know. for general C code that the user wants to
make available to Guile, the "decoupled" declaration is best, but this
doesn't mean that C routines written *just* for Guile need the
verbosity and duplication, not to mention the very *internals* of
Guile.
so, the usage would be like:
SCM_HOOKUP(c_name, "scheme-name", req_args_num, opt_args_num,
rest_args_p, "doc-string");
SCM
c_name(<args>) {...}
-and-
SCM_PROC(c_name, "scheme-name", (req_args_decl), (opt_args_decl),
(rest_arg_decl), "doc-string") {
<stuff>
}
(don't kill me for the names).
does the above make sense?
--mike
--
Don't trust these UNIX people. They are all demons. They kill their
parents and fork children. I don't know how they could do this with
their balls cut off but they manage. -- anonymous