Re: Scwm docstrings change

[Michael Livshin <mlivshin at bigfoot dot com>]

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