This is the mail archive of the guile@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the Guile project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: interface reductions


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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]