[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Couple things...
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
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?