Volker,
Thanks for all your work on GF functions.
I noticed that gf_data is both the name of a function and
a structure which is returned by that function.
I.e. function gf_data returns a gf_data structure.
That's a little problematic since that makes gf_data structures
unreadable, in the sense that the output of grind cannot be parsed,
as it causes an error about a wrong number of arguments for
$GF_DATA.
I'm pretty sure it's necessary to distinguish the name of the
structure from the name of the function. My recommendation
is to rename the function to gf_get_data (and rename gf_set
to gf_set_data to show that it is related). Another approach is
to make the structure name a noun, so that one would write
'gf_data(...) to make a structure. I'm less enthusiastic about
that. What do you think?
best
Robert Dodier