Hi, [-asmundak, as he probably doesn't care :)]
On Tue 17 Mar 2015 23:21, Doug Evans <d...@google.com> writes: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:57 AM, Andy Wingo <wi...@igalia.com> wrote: >>> As to the class of an object passed to a sniffer, how about calling it >>> FrameData? Note that it's not very important from the user's point of >>> view as sniffer code does not ever reference it by name. >> >> It's true that from user code it barely matters to Python, but Scheme's >> monomorphic flavor makes these things more apparent: >> >> (frame-data-read-register frame "r0") >> >> This doesn't read so well to me -- is it "read-register" on a >> "frame-data", or is it "data-read-register" on a "frame" ? A weak point >> but "ephemeral-frame-read-register" avoids the question. > > As food for discussion, > I know some people use foo:bar in Scheme to separate > the object "foo" from the operation on it "bar". > -> frame-data:read-register This convention is not often used in Guile. When it is used, it often denotes field access rather than some more involved procedure call -- similar to the lowercase "foo_bar()" versus camel-cased "FooBar()" in Google C++ guidelines. > I like having some separator, but I went with what > I thought was the preferred spelling (all -'s). > It's not too late to change gdb/guile to use foo:bar throughout (IMO), > but the door is closing. FWIW, I prefer "-". Andy
