|
From: | Arthur Maciel |
Subject: | Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH] Fix #1133 |
Date: | Sun, 6 Jul 2014 17:39:09 -0300 |
Now with correct subject. Sorry.Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 23:31:18 +0200 (CEST)From: Felix Winkelmann <address@hidden>
> More documentation for internals, even comments will do.
Well, that can be done. External documentation will quickly get out of
sync, but comments shouldn't be a problem. If there are particular
places where one could start, please tell.Probably all my doubts are due to my ignorance about C and computer internals, but I would love to understand more the chicken.h file.
(http://code.call-cc.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=chicken-core.git;a=blob;f=chicken.h;h=f5a103ee14314f7c679e01dd8e11c0404043791a;hb=HEAD)
I feel really ashamed to ask this, but as I want to contribute more to Chicken, it would help me a lot to know about these details:
- Throughout the whole file I can't guess what is the meaning of some prefix or suffix letters in function names, like:
- C_truep(x): I suppose the "p" stands for "predicate" as in Common Lisp, right?
- C_c_pointer(x): what does the "_c_" stand for?
- C_c_pointer_nn(x): what about "nn"?
- C_fixnum_plus(n1, n2) vs. C_u_fixnum_plus(n1, n2): does the "_u_" on the second mean "unsigned"?
- C_ub_i_flonum_plus(x, y): what about "ub"? unsigned byte?
- C_a_i_flonum_plus(ptr, c, n1, n2) and C_a_i(a, n): what about "a" and "i"?- C_mpointer: the "m" stands for "memory"?
- C_mk_bool: "mk" stand for "make"?
- Lines 777 to 838: I suppose the code is used for CPS, but I'm not sure about it and I can't figure out why it is implemented that way and how it is used in practice.
- Lines 876 to 909: although this excerpt starts with a comment about Clang and G++ limitations on statement expressions, all the hackery is only implemented when DEBUGBUILD is defined. I don't understand why. I also can't understand the code from 892 to 909, but I suppose I need more C knowledge to that.
I thought about comments like this in chicken.h:
/* "p" suffix (like in C_truep) stands for "predicate" as in Lisp tradition. See: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/cltl/clm/node69.html */
The CPS and statement expressions could be elsewhere.
What do you think? Is it worthy?
Thanks for help and sorry about the ignorance.Best wishes,
Arthur
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |