>> Hmm, what I'm trying to say here that "lazy" is not some standard, >> established terminology, and if we come up with something better, we >> should feel free to change terminology. > > Yes, that makes good sense. I can't think of anything better than > "pre-unwind", so I'll use that in all new names. I don't think it's > worth changing any preexisting names though, such as struct lazy_catch > - do you agree?
I agree. > [...], so long as we don't have to worry about preserving source > compatibility for functions that have SCM_API but are not part of > the Guile API. And my understanding is that "part of the Guile API" > <=> "documented in the manual". Yes, exactly. -- GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
