2008/7/17 Jim Ursetto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:54 PM, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 1) When there is a one to one mapping between a Scheme variable/constant & a >> C variable/macro-constant/constant/enum should the Scheme symbol naming >> mirror the C naming? Should the C 'SOME_C_LIBRARY_MACCONST' identifier be >> mapped to the Scheme 'SOME_C_LIBRARY_MACCONST', or some Scheme'ish >> 'some-c-library-macconst'? > >> 2) A C procedure binding name: 'some_c_func' -> 'foreign-some-c-func' , >> 'some_c_func', 'C_some_c_func'? > > I prefer the scheme style for any exported API. I use the C style > only for internal stuff which is basically on the bare metal (maybe > using a similar schemely name for a nicer wrapper), or when I really > want to warn the user this is lowlevel stuff. > > Example from socket egg, SO_REUSEADDR -> so/reuseaddr (low-level > integer value), and socket-reuse-address (high-level procedure). Here > I did not happen to use "SO_REUSEADDR" verbatim, though that would > have been acceptable. I just don't like shouting. > > In short, it depends on the egg.
I'm making binding for GLEW (thus making bindings for OpenGL 2.1). I've chosen gl-vertex3f and GL-POINTS to map glVertex3f and GL_POINTS. If I write the C code, I would have gl_vertex3f instead (in C). I think GL-POINTS could be gl-points unambiguaously but maybe someone would like to write a gl-points as higher level procedure. And Felix chose gl:Vertex3f and gl:POINTS for the OpenGL bindings. I guess when I'll release the egg, I'll make the two options available. Cheers, Thu _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users