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 <felix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:felix> But the problem I see with *this* SRFI is that it specifies too felix> much (IMHO). If SRFI-50 is considered a (slightly) portable FFI felix> to C, then things could be done considerably simpler, safer and felix> completely portable (up to a certain point). If SRFI-50 is felix> only about a semi-standard way of messing with Scheme internals felix> at the C level, then I'll keep my mouth shut from now on... To be honest, you've lost me in a twisty maze of natural-language semantics.
Oh, it's very easy:If the current SRFI-50 proposal is intended as a general, portable FFI (Foreign Function Interface), to be used among many different Scheme implementations, then it simply fails, for reasons others have pointed out.
If the current SRFI-50 proposal is exactly meant as "Mixing Scheme with C", that is, explicitly targeted at *not* interfacing to external libraries, *but* intermixing C and Scheme-runtime invocations (including all the hairy implementation-specific interelations that appear at such a level), then this current draft proposal may be considered one possible approach to such un undertaking. Or put differently: you are trying to standardize a particular way of interfacing to C, which is perhaps somewhat interesting and flexible, but not very portable, reliable or even practical. cheers, felix