Re: [PATCH, doc RFA] Add guile gdb parameter support

Ludovic Courtès
2014-05-27T07:01:40Z

Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com> skribis:

> + guile-user for more eyes
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Ludovic CourtÃ¨s <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Hi, Doug,
>>
>> Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com> skribis:
>>
>>> +@deffn {Scheme Procedure} parameter? object
>>> +Return @code{#t} if @var{object} is a @code{<gdb:parameter>} object.
>>> +Otherwise return @code{#f}.
>>> +@end deffn
>>
>> There’s the problem that in Guile “parametersâ€ are something different,
>> and ‘parameter?’ is already provided by core Guile (info "(guile)
>> Parameters").
>>
>> Unless “parameterâ€ is the official (public) name for this in GDB, I’d
>> recommend using a different name in the API, perhaps “knobâ€ or something
>> like that. WDYT?
>
> "parameters" is what the python side calls them, I think the name in
> gdb is pretty concrete.
> Not entirely so, but using a different name isn't without its own problems.

Yes, surely.

> fwiw, and I know a lot don't like this approach,
> but I personally intend to always import the gdb module with a gdb: prefix.

Yes.

[...]

> But I'd also like to hear your thoughts on the general solution of
> just saying the convention is to important the gdb module with a gdb:
> prefix.

I generally agree with the idea that name clashes are best handled via
module renamers.

I also think it’s convenient when obvious name clashes are avoided
altogether. For instance, at the GDB prompt, it’s easier if you just
have to type “guile (use-modules (gdb))â€ instead of the longer thing.

So I’d really consider name issues on a case-by-case basis.

Back to this particular case, if the Python API already uses the term
“parameterâ€, that’s probably enough to argue that the Guile API should
use that name as well.

Thanks,
Ludo’.