Re: G-wrap 1.9 public API (goops, generics, and modules).

[Rob Browning]

Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:

> I'm still hesitant about really generic names outside of guile core.
> I wouldn't be quite as hesitant if guile itself had defined a
> documentation generic for use in its global documentation
> infrastructure, and if it had, or adds one later, then I presume we'd
> have trouble here.
>
>>    typespec 
>>    c-name
>>    argument-count input-argument-count optional-argument-count
>>    arguments argument-types
>>    return-type return-typespec
>>    generic-name 
>>    class-name type options c-type-name all-types add-option!
>>    var wrapped-var
>>    visible? default-value number name render no-op?
>
>> Hmm, variable-name and wrapped-variable-name? A bit long, but
>> bearble I think.

Oh, and upon re-reading my message this morning, I can see that my
editing of the replies didn't make it at all clear here that Andreas
and I are both interested in changing some or all of the exported
names as we prepare for release.  The question is just "to what".  For
those who hadn't seen the history, my reply didn't make that clear.

The above was my own forshortening of the conversation in the previous
message, and the full message I was replying to can be seen on the
g-wrap-dev mailing list.  (Apologies to Andreas for any possible
misharacterization.)

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592  F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4