Re: deeper constification

[Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj at mdj dot nada dot kth dot se>]

Michael Livshin <mlivshin@bigfoot.com> writes:

> Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj@mdj.nada.kth.se> writes:
> 
> > > If SCM_VECTOR_REF/SET will actually perform the equivalent to vector-ref
> > > and vector-set!, then I'm in favor of these.  Otherwise, the names should
> > > be different in order to avoid confusion.
> > > 
> > > Although these names do not match the suggested style to put the SET at
> > > the front of the identifier it may be better to keep them aligned to the
> > > scheme level names.
> > 
> > I agree with Dirk.
> > 
> > Just a question: If we're making an exception from the naming
> > convention in order to be consistent with Scheme, how do you feel
> > about the fact that we're anyway not using the Scheme name translation
> > convention?  (SCM_VECTOR_SET vs SCM_VECTOR_SET_X)
> 
> I'd say if we are to translate, then let's translate.  so
> SCM_VECTOR_SET_X seems to be the best choice.
> 
> but in general, having both SET and _X in one name seems verbose.
> hmm...  is there any agreement wrt macro names obeying the same rules
> as function names?

No, on the contrary: We have never used _X in macro names.  Example:
Old SCM_SETCAR and new SCM_SET_CAR.  It would probably be irritating
to write that _X all the time...  Also, we would have to change
essentially *all* current SET macros in order not to be inconsistent.

Maybe this tells us that there is no big win in departing from
convention in order to be similar to Scheme names: We won't go all the
way anyway...