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

[Andreas Rottmann]

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:

> 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).
>
Sure :)

>> 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.
>
Those aren't accessors anyway; I tend to avoid them and use keywords
arguments with initialize for setting them once (you don't need to
change the arguments of a function, once it has been created).

Andy
-- 
Andreas Rottmann         | address@hidden      | address@hidden | address@hidden
http://yi.org/rotty      | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint              | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219  F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62

Latein ist das humanoide Äquivalent zu Fortran.
   -- Alexander Bartolich in at.linux