On Sun, Sep 05 2010, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi there! > > 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’m also open to different names that aren’t confusing and show the > symmetry.)
import-foreign-function export-foreign-function / export-to-foreign-function procedure-from-foreign-function / foreign-function-to-procedure procedure-to-foreign-function / foreign-function-from-procedure procedure-from-foreign / foreign-to-procedure procedure-to-foreign / foreign-from-procedure at any rate, i find "pointer" not clear enough. jao -- Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it. - Alan Perlis, Epigrams in Programing
