Re: Building Extensions for STk

From: j.p.lewis <zilla_at_kerner.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 11:47:02 -0800 (PST)

I agree that it would be nice to have some consistency
in naming extensions across scheme implementations. How should
we do this? I think the only way would be to survey the
existing implementations, come up with a proposal that
is good with the constraint of requiring the least change
from existing implementations, and then relentlessly promote
it as an informal standard on comp.lang.scheme.
Unfortuntately, most of us don't have the energy to do this.

My vote (I used this in the foreign function interface to elk2.0
in fact):

unix-specific routines are called "unix-something", e.g. unix-fork, unix-wait

other os routines are named "os-something", e.g. "os-filesize".

With a naming convention like this you can do (apropos "os-")
to find the available os related extensions.

j.p.lewis
industrial light&magic
Received on Wed Feb 15 1995 - 20:53:30 CET