[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Finally ready to talk more substantively about 1.9 (and tng).
From: |
Andy Wingo |
Subject: |
Re: Finally ready to talk more substantively about 1.9 (and tng). |
Date: |
Sat, 08 May 2004 19:40:10 +0100 |
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>