Re: Names in libguile

[Dirk Herrmann <dirk at ida dot ing dot tu-bs dot de>]

On 17 Mar 2000, Greg J. Badros wrote:

> All of these notes should be summarized and stuck in a file in the
> guile-core module (and updated).

There are still some open points:

scm_c_XXX : 
    Only used for C-level variants of a scm_XXX schene primitive, or
    rather to be used for everything that is not a scheme primitive?

scm_i_XXX :
    Only for internal _functions_ or rather for everything that is
    internal?  For example, scm_sym_ is for symbols that may be used by
    users, while scm_i_sym_ is used for guile internally?  Otherwise we
    can't distinguish between C variables holding symbols that are part of
    the official API and internally used C variables holding symbols.

what about boolean variables/constants? scm_bool_?  This would fit nicely
    with the current macro names SCM_BOOL_T and SCM_BOOL_F.

what about number variables/constants? scm_num_?  There is at least a
    SCM_MAKINUM(0) somewhere...

scm_s_, scm_k_, scm_sym_, scm_var_:
    What about macro variants of these?  At least, some symbols and
    constants are represented as macros.

Macros in general:
    Should internally used macros be called SCM_I_xxx, thus following the
    above scheme?

    How do scheme-level names translate if there are macros that do the
    same thing?  set-car! --> SCM_SETCAR, thus, the '!' is dropped and the
    intermediate '-' is dropped.  However, this is not done
    consistently:  sometimes intermediate '-' are _not_ dropped. 

    Currently it seem that:

    - becomes sometimes _ and sometimes nothing 
    ! becomes nothing
    ? becomes P for single-word xxx, _P otherwise
    % becomes I don't know what.


I would prefer if both worlds (functions/variables and macros) were using
similar schemes as far as possible.  (I even dislike the _P/P
distinction, but I know that I am strange :-)

Best regards
Dirk Herrmann