From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marius Vollmer To: Mark Seaborn Cc: guile-gtk@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: Making gdk-event-area work Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 07:40:00 -0000 Message-id: <87og1w2ud2.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> References: <20000903203713R.mseaborn@argonet.co.uk> <87zolm66bm.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> <87its930mo.fsf@argbg34.argonet.co.uk> X-SW-Source: 2000-q3/msg00029.html Mark Seaborn writes: > Pairs are usually used to represent lists, and a lot of static type > systems only let you store lists in the cdr of a pair. If that a static type system is intended to be used with Scheme, then it is fundamentally broken. Pairs are used in a non-list manner all the time, for association lists, for binary trees, etc. > It's true there are times when improper lists are useful, but I > don't like being gratuitously incompatible with other type systems. > I might want my Scheme code to interoperate with them later. I think this fear is unfounded. There is no way that such a type system could be used extensively with Scheme. > It's also not very readable using `car', `cdr', etc. for this. I > suggest providing some accessor functions, `bbox-min-x', > `bbox-min-y', etc., and saying the representation might change in a > later version. Yes, that's a good point. We might want to change to using Goops, for example, and have proper types for 2D-points and stuff. What about names like gdk-point-x car gdk-point-y cdr gdk-rect-pos car gdk-rect-size cdr gdk-rect-x caar gdk-rect-y cdar gdk-rect-w cadr gdk-rect-h cddr