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

Re: Couple things...



On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 20:54:43 +0100, Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Ray" == Ray Dillinger <bear@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

Ray> I think that you're striking a rather aggressive balance favoring
Ray>     FFI functionality over portability.  While there's nothing wrong
Ray> with that, there's probably room for a simpler SRFI that specifies
Ray>     a less general and more portable FFI.  Perhaps that SRFI should
Ray>     come before this one.

That certainly makes sense.  However, as I argued further up in this
thread, I don't think the "less general FFI" Felix envisioned is very
useful.


I do not envision a less general FFI. Please read more carefully.
I was talking about a completely different approach (not necessarily
tool-based).

Note that the Chicken FFI (for example) does not allow GC during the invocation of foreign code, unless callbacks are explicitly used,
and that all arguments are normally passed as valid C data (i.e.
C code is provided a "view" of the data that it can understand,
similar to what I proposed). It has been useful enough to write
wrappers for OpenGL, GLUT, BLAS, SQLite, the Irrlicht 3D engine,
Sockets, most of POSIX, JAPI, MD5 stuff, Tiny CC, PCRE, SDL, GMP,
SCOP, Spread and many other things, which should be enough for
the start...


cheers,
felix