Re: [racket-users] Re: FFI Library Naming Conventions

2017-01-08 Thread Jens Axel Søgaard
Using prefix-out it is easy to provide the end user with both options. One module exports the bindings without the library name prefix. The other simply imports and reexports all bindings using prefix-out. /Jens Axel 2017-01-08 23:18 GMT+01:00 Hendrik Boom : > On Sun,

Re: [racket-users] Re: FFI Library Naming Conventions

2017-01-08 Thread Hendrik Boom
On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 01:43:09PM -0800, Lehi Toskin wrote: > On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 8:29:49 AM UTC-8, Royall Spence wrote: > > I'm making some bindings for a C library. In the original library, the > > functions are named as "LIBNAME_do_stuff". Should I keep those the same in > > the

[racket-users] Re: FFI Library Naming Conventions

2017-01-08 Thread Lehi Toskin
On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 8:29:49 AM UTC-8, Royall Spence wrote: > I'm making some bindings for a C library. In the original library, the > functions are named as "LIBNAME_do_stuff". Should I keep those the same in > the FFI binding or define them as "libname-do-stuff"? Is there a convention

[racket-users] FFI Library Naming Conventions

2017-01-08 Thread 'Royall Spence' via Racket Users
I'm making some bindings for a C library. In the original library, the functions are named as "LIBNAME_do_stuff". Should I keep those the same in the FFI binding or define them as "libname-do-stuff"? Is there a convention for these things? -- You received this message because you are