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

Re: Couple things...



On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:12:37 +0100, Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"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