Re: Names in libguile

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs at eazel dot com>]

Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se> writes:

> Dirk Herrmann <dirk@ida.ing.tu-bs.de> writes:
> 
> >     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. 
> 
> The translation scheme is only valid for Scheme primitives.  Each
> Scheme primitive corresponds to a C function which implements it.
> I think we can handle other cases without policy.
> 
> > 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 :-)
> 
> Certainly _P is simpler, but then, Helvetica is simpler and more
> consistent than Times Roman and the latter is much more readable in
> the long run.
> 
> Code should be pretty and easy to read, not only simple and
> consistent.  (Besides, the _P/P *is* 100% consistent, just a little
> bit complex.)

I think it would still be nice for macro names to be consistent with
function names. In any case, I don't see why SCM_NULLP is supposed to
be a gain in readability above SCM_NULL_P, but scm_nullp is inferior
to scm_null_p.

 - Maciej