Hi, Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> skribis:
> On Wed 25 Jan 2012 13:42, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Andy Wingo <wi...@pobox.com> skribis: >> >>>> What about calling it ‘current-file-name’ instead? >>> >>> > (apropos "filename") >>> (guile): set-module-filename! #<procedure 1546f20 at >>> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1712:2 (module val)> >>> (guile): module-filename #<procedure 1546fa0 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:1712:2 >>> (module)> >>> (guile): current-filename >>> (guile): set-port-filename! #<procedure set-port-filename! (_ _)> >>> (guile): port-filename #<procedure port-filename (_)> >>> (ice-9 readline): filename-completion-function #<procedure >>> filename-completion-function (_ _)> >>> > (apropos "file-name") >>> > >>> >>> Though I am responsible for three of those, I think I was just following >>> established convention. >> >> Hmm, OK then. > > We can still change it if it's the right thing, but we would probably > need to do the same with the other interfaces (with the deprecation > dance). Right. Or we could keep both, for those that already existed? (Just like some software packages have both “color” and “colour” in their API.) > Note that there's also the instance of 'filename in alists, like in > source properties. We probably wouldn't be able to change those. Yes, this one cannot be changed. Ludo’.
