On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 06:56:06AM -0500, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> * (One argument *against* using Racket idiomatic names for a big API, such
> as OpenGL, is that sometimes you might really want to make the names look
> like the C ones, such as for people copying large masses of example code.
> I'm
* Remember that, although Racket is rich with various kinds of
namespaces, documentation lookup for the core Racket and add-on packages
really prefer that names are mostly unique globally. (I won't get into
readability tradeoffs, for various use cases that come up.) See thread
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,
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
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
5 matches
Mail list logo