Are you prematurely worrying about conflicting names ? :))
I admit I'm a bit confused about the bridging-code issue. I think if there was a bit of scheme functionality I wanted permanently available in my arc, I would add the relevant xdef in ac.scm. 'mz as it stands is fine for once-off or exploratory hacks, and as it's not there unless you've installed the patch, the name conflict isn't such an issue really.
I wonder is anyone preparing an app for mediocre zoos, motorcycle zen, or the Mark of Zorro?
Sure, that works. I prefer to program in Arc though.
as it's not there unless you've installed the patch, the name conflict isn't such an issue really
Oh, but I'm writing more code like my "lib" library which uses mz, so if you want to use my libraries, the name conflict issue will come up, if it is an issue.
Maybe I'll decide that I like "ac-passthru", not because I'm worried about possible future naming conflicts (which, as you point out, I've previously claimed should be dealt with in a different way), but because I think it's a better name for what it does.
An "mz" for once-off or exploratory hacks could after all be implemented in different ways, using ac-passthru or Scheme eval or connecting to a remote Scheme process, so I might be more comfortable not assuming that if I want to hack with a bit of Scheme code that passing through the Arc compiler is necessarily the way I want to do it.
