Re: maybe pika

[Tom Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>]

    >     > From: Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    >     Tom> I think that the (still incomplete) C API to Pika Scheme is,
    >     Tom> overall, a better candidate for a portable FFI.

    >     > It'd help if you'd be more specific as to the whys and whats.
    >     > From a glance at the documentation, I can only conclude "... and
    >     > I think not."
    > 

    > To be more specific: 

    > a) It currently uses output parameters for return values and 
    >    pointers to variables for parameters -- it addresses the GC-safety
    >    issues we've been discussing.

    > b) It adds a "scheme instance" parameter to all functions (called an
    >    "arena" rather than an "instance" in the Pika code).

    > c) It uses error return codes rather than non-local exits to signal
    >    errors to and from C code.


I left out (d), that it has a read/write barrier over local variables
containing Scheme values.

-t