This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 50 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 50 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
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