*** empty log message ***

devel/policy/names.text

@@ -1,127 +0,0 @@
-[This is currently a collection of information in an unedited state.
- Someone will change this soon.]
-
-The C names for Scheme primitives *always* obey a fixed name
-translation scheme:
-
-scm_XXX where XXX is translated from the Scheme name, except that
-
- - becomes _
- ! becomes _x
- ? becomes _p
- % becomes sys_
-
-If there's a C variant of something provided at the Scheme level (like
-the current scm_internal_dynamic_wind), it has the prefix scm_c_
-instead of scm_.
-
-A function named scm_c_FOO serves the same purpose as the function
-named scm_FOO, except that its interface is tailored for use from C,
-while scm_FOO is tailored for use from Scheme, and is probably
-exported as a Scheme primitive.
-
-For example, scm_FOO might expect Scheme procedures as arguments,
-while scm_c_FOO might take C function pointers and a passthrough
-value.
-
-
-If there's a C function with global scope which is only intended to be
-used internally in libguile, it has the prefix scm_i_.
-
-String literals with global scope has the prefix scm_s_.  (Greg
-introduced the prefix s_scm_ but this has to change to scm_s_ since
-s_scm_ trespasses the user's namespace.)
-
-Not correct: Those names have module-local scope and does not trespass
-user name space.
-
-Keywords with global scope has the prefix scm_k_.
-
-Symbols with global scope has the prefix scm_sym_.
-
-Variable bindings with global scope has the prefix scm_var_.
-
-Names, in general, have an internal left-to-right order of increasing
-specificity: scm_ is least specific.  It is often followed by some
-type, like `stack', and, finally, the operation.  Example:
-scm_stack_length.
-
-There are exceptions, though:
-
-* If a name is already established at the Scheme level, this defines
-  the C name through the translation scheme.
-
-* According to the rule, we should have `SCM_SMOB_DATA_SET', but we
-  instead have `SCM_SET_SMOB_DATA'.  Generally, `set' should be placed
-  as far left as possible:
-
-  `port-filename'       scm_port_filename
-  `set-port-filename!'  scm_set_port_filename_x
-
-  SCM_SMOB_DATA
-  SCM_SET_SMOB_DATA
-
-* Guile has a lot of history with lots of different strange names.
-  Perhaps a major name overhaul can be done at the same time as we go
-  through Guile's interfaces to checks soundness and theoretical
-  properties such as type safety.  We *should* be a bit careful with
-  name changes in order not to break existing application code.
-
-> Further, I'd love it if macros to create scheme values from C values would
-> be named SCM_MAKE_... more consitently.  Currently, we have SCM_MAKICHAR
-> (OK, this one's been made deprecated), SCM_MAKINUM and others.
-
-I agree.
-
-> Also, some macros are used for symbols or keywords.  The best solution
-> would be to use a similar naming scheme for these also.
-> 
-> It's good to talk about improving guile's API.  A clean, consistent and
-> beautiful api is, in my belief, important for guile's attractivity, and
-> makes learning it easier.  
-
-Yes!
-
-There are still some open points:
-
-scm_c_XXX : 
-    Only used for C-level variants of a scm_XXX schene primitive, or
-    rather to be used for everything that is not a scheme primitive?
-
-scm_i_XXX :
-    Only for internal _functions_ or rather for everything that is
-    internal?  For example, scm_sym_ is for symbols that may be used by
-    users, while scm_i_sym_ is used for guile internally?  Otherwise we
-    can't distinguish between C variables holding symbols that are part of
-    the official API and internally used C variables holding symbols.
-
-what about boolean variables/constants? scm_bool_?  This would fit nicely
-    with the current macro names SCM_BOOL_T and SCM_BOOL_F.
-
-what about number variables/constants? scm_num_?  There is at least a
-    SCM_MAKINUM(0) somewhere...
-
-scm_s_, scm_k_, scm_sym_, scm_var_:
-    What about macro variants of these?  At least, some symbols and
-    constants are represented as macros.
-
-Macros in general:
-    Should internally used macros be called SCM_I_xxx, thus following the
-    above scheme?
-
-    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. 
-
-    Currently it seem that:
-
-    - becomes sometimes _ and sometimes nothing 
-    ! becomes nothing
-    ? becomes P for single-word xxx, _P otherwise
-    % becomes I don't know what.
-
-
-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 :-)