Re: [PATCH v1 02/36] Guile extension language: doc additions

[Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> +The optional @var{errors} argument is either @code{"strict"}
>>> +or @code{"replace"}.  A value of @code{"strict"} corresponds to
>>> +Guile's @code{SCM_FAILED_CONVERSION_ERROR} and a value of @code{"replace"}
>>> +corresponds to Guile's @code{SCM_FAILED_CONVERSION_QUESTION_MARK}.
>>
>> Suggest a cross-reference to Guile documentation here.
>
> Agreed.  Also, Guile talks of “conversion strategy” and “conversion
> error handler”, with values ‘error’, ‘substitute’, and ‘escape’ (at the
> Scheme level), and I’d recommend sticking to those names and terminology.

The values chosen were to be consistent with the python support.
OTOH I *do* like being more consistent with the particular extension
language at hand.
I've tentatively changes things to use "error" and "substitute".
Question: How about exporting the SCM_FAILED_CONVERSION_* constants
and using those instead?

E.g, (value->string foo #:errors SCM_FAILED_CONVERSION_ERROR) ?

I don't have a strong opinion either way.

Also, in the same spirit of naming things with preference to being
more consistent with the extension language at hand than being more
consistent across all extension languages, does anyone mind if I
rename the "guile-interactive" command to "guile-repl"?