Hi, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> writes:
> 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. I committed the change yesterday. Thanks, Ludo’.
