Re: Finally ready to talk more substantively about 1.9 (and tng).

[Andy Wingo]

Hey,

On Thu, 2004-05-06 at 18:23, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> >  (for-each (lambda (f) (close f)) items)
> 
> This should be (for-each (lambda (file) (close file)) items) 

Or, as a bikeshed, (for-each close files).

> I agree that these names are a bit overly generic. I'll quote the list
> of maybe too generic (g-wrap) exports here, so we can discuss about
> name changes.
> 
>    description
>    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!

OK, another nitpick. GTK is where I'm most familiar with generic
functions. When they have getters, they use `get-' before the name. It
is a mental clue that the function is a generic. It's not so schemy, but
then, generic functions aren't all that schemy either. And of course
`get-' doesn't make sense as an accessor. Perhaps then you should be
using slot-set!, etc anyway. Just a thought.

Cheers,
-- 
Andy Wingo <address@hidden>