Hi! "Jose A. Ortega Ruiz" <j...@gnu.org> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 05 2010, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> Hi there! >> >> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> >>> BTW, while we’re at it, how about make-foreign-function => >>> pointer->procedure? >> >> We briefly discussed this on IRC. One issue with the >> ‘pointer->procedure’ name is that ‘->’ procedures are most of the time >> one-argument procedures, whereas ‘make-foreign-function’ has 3 mandatory >> arguments. >> >> However, it occurred to me that what confuses me most about >> ‘make-foreign-function’ is that it actually makes a Scheme procedure out >> of a foreign function. >> >> Conversely, ‘procedure->pointer’ really makes a foreign function out of >> a Scheme procedure. >> >> In addition, I like the idea of having names that show the symmetry of >> these two procedures. >> >> So, what do you think? :-) >> >> (I’m also open to different names that aren’t confusing and show the >> symmetry.) > > import-foreign-function > export-foreign-function / export-to-foreign-function > > procedure-from-foreign-function / foreign-function-to-procedure > procedure-to-foreign-function / foreign-function-from-procedure OK. (Slightly to verbose to my taste.) > procedure-from-foreign / foreign-to-procedure > procedure-to-foreign / foreign-from-procedure > > at any rate, i find "pointer" not clear enough. Hmm but I find ‘foreign’ as a substantive hard to parse. :-) The object type in question is now called ‘pointer’ (it used to be ‘foreign’), hence the name. “Pointer” is meant as a synonym for ‘void *’ ans pointer objects are untyped, which may be why it seems “vague”. But hey, the concept of pointing to the void *is* vague. :-) Thanks for the suggestions! Ludo’.
