Greets, On Sun 05 Sep 2010 17:10, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> 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 guess I'm OK with it. The new names do convey the types better to the programmer. I'm hesitant regarding "pointer" though; the name is just so general. I guess I prefer "machine-pointer" or something. But I would also be OK with the change as you propose it. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
