Re: Couple things...

[tb@xxxxxxxxxx (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

felix <felix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Not only that. It allows the *implementor* maximal flexibility, which
> I consider more important in this case. Allowing a form to be a function
> may tempt users to do weird stuff like taking it's address, etc.

That's exactly the flexibility I thought we should give the user.

The intereface will be used an awful lot more times than it is
implemented.  The mere convenience of the implementor isn't worth
much.  

> Remember: on this level (FFI) things can get extremely fragile and
> tricky.  The user of an FFI should be *forced* to use it's forms in
> a straightforward and simply manner.

Ha ha ha ha.

Programmers will quickly probe every corner of the interface; if it's
so fragile that you can't specify the meaning of the forms, but have
to rely on them being used "straightforwardly", then you are nowhere
near ready to specify an interface.

Thomas