On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Volker van Nek <volkervannek at gmail.com>wrote:
> 2013/3/13 Robert Dodier <robert.dodier at gmail.com>:
> > 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 see the problem. Thanks for pointing to that.
>
> > 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?
>
> gf_get_data and gf_set_data are OK by me.
>
Won't that break everyone's code that uses the GF functions?
Ray