Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> I don't think this is actually the case: there are currently 4
>> shared libraries in the `srfi' directory, but none of them is
>> documented in the manual and the C functions they export are not
>> mentioned either (that's what I meant by "practically preclude":
>> it's technically possible to use them but it's not documented).
>
> Actually, in general, the SRFI scm_* functions are intended for public
> use. If not, then all of the relevant scm_* functions would/should
> have been named scm_i_*.
>
> Also, you definitely can't judge by the presence or lack of
> documentation. Guile's documentation has often taken a while to catch
> up with the code.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I accept that documentation can
sometimes take a while to catch up (although it shouldn't, and
recently I think we've all been pretty good about writing doc at the
same time as developing something), but in principle I think "presence
in the manual" is a better way of indicating to users whether an API
is officially supported than a coding convention.
Regards,
Neil
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
