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

2017-01-09 Thread Hendrik Boom
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

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

2017-01-09 Thread Neil Van Dyke
* 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

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