This is the mail archive of the
guile@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: interface reductions
- To: Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj at mdj dot nada dot kth dot se>
- Subject: Re: interface reductions
- From: Dirk Herrmann <dirk at ida dot ing dot tu-bs dot de>
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 17:18:15 +0200 (MEST)
- cc: Guile Mailing List <guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>, djurfeldt at nada dot kth dot se
On 24 May 2000, Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
> I think you agree with this. But we seem to have a different
> interpretation of "deprecated". If I, as a programmer, see that
> something is deprecated, that means, for me, that A. I should not use
> it in new programs, ans B. I should try to remove it from old programs
> when I get the opportunity. But I can't do that if there doesn't
> exist a valid alternative.
I think we mostly agree. Maybe the only thing we disagree about is what
we consider as valid alternatives. For a lot of the macros, there exist
scm_xxx functions as alternatives, but these will obviously be less
efficient from a performance point of view. I will give a few examples:
SCM_FAST_FLUID_REF --> scm_fluid_ref
SCM_FAST_FLUID_SET_X --> scm_fluid_set_x
SCM_BIGSIGN --> scm_positive_p / scm_negative_p
SCM_XXXP --> scm_xxx_p (for most predicates)
I did not check all the macros, and there are some which don't have an
eqivalent, like SCM_HOOK_NAME, SCM_FLUID_NUM and some of the stranger
parts of the bignum interface.
Best regards
Dirk