[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > If nobody disagrees, I would like to merge `(ice-9 i18n)' in HEAD > and 1.8 within a few days "as is" (that is, using a separate shared > library and without documenting the C functions, as discussed > earlier).
I don't have a strong feeling about the shared library issue as long as none of the versioning requirements are broken. However, I'm still opposed to the addition of new scm_ functions that aren't intended to be public, but don't use the scm_i_ prefix. For better or for worse, people have long been advised to look at the Guile headers/source in addition to the documentation, especially when the documentation wasn't as good, and they've also been told about the scm_i_ convention. I've assumed that convention myself when reading the source, and whether we maintain a public/private distinction via a naming convention or via public/private headers, I think it's a good idea. -- Rob Browning rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4 _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
