[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Couple things...

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.

On 27 Dec 2003 12:35:56 -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

felix <felix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Exactly for that reason I propose to simplify the interface, and
to remove space for dirty tricks and to specify the meaning of the
forms rigorously.

I am aghast that you think taking the address of a function is a
"dirty trick"--especially since you are talking to a group of Scheme
programmers!  Good grief.

Oh, come on.

What *is* a dirty trick, and I am, I think, rightly worried about, is
the dirty tricks that *implementors* play when you tell them to do
things with a macro.  Functions are *far* more predictable than
macros; they have a single well-defined semantics.  C macros can be
tricky to write correctly.

You, as a user, don't have to write that macro. The dirty tricks
that implementors have to play, when trying to conform to this SRFI,
might be unavoidable.

I don't believe you simplify *anything* by saying "you can do this
with a macro if you like".  In practice, that is done in C standards
precisely when you want to give implementors weird flexibility.  Look
at, for example, the way that errno is allowed to be a macro in C, and

It looks like you never designed and implemented a Scheme FFI.
That flexibility on the implementors side is important. *Especially*
if portability is required.

Moreover, you still will have people doing things like:

#if defined (foo)
do it where foo is a macre
take the address of foo

People will do all sorts of weird things. So what?