Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andy Wingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> - scm_frame_begin, unwind_handler, etc -- should change because there
>> is also a SCM-based scm_frame interface
>
> Yeah, that's unfortunate. we have two things that are termed a
> "frame": he things dealt with by scm_frame_begin, etc, and the frames
> of a captured stack. When designing the scm_frame_begin stuff, I
> didn't think about those "other" frames, and when I finally noticed
> that there is a terminology overlap, ... I refused to think too much
> about it since I wanted to use the nice name for my stuff as
> well... Hmm. Ideally, I think the captured stack frames should be
> called "stack frames".
>
> Opinions?
Ideally, yes, but I think there is already a body of code using the
existing frame- names. (At least, I know I have such code in
guile-debugging, and I think others do too, because of the occasional
discussions about getting debugging information out of a stack.)
How about renaming the internal scm_frame functions instead, since
AFAIK they haven't been released yet? Perhaps scm_context_..., or
scm_dynwind_..., or scm_dc_...?
Regards,
Neil
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
