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.
>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Dempsky <jivera@xxxxxxxxx> writes: Matthew> Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> - Many (but not all) Scheme systems can quite easily support it, >> because it already matches the FFI they have currently. >> - There's lots of experience with this kind of FFI, and it's proven >> to work (for Scheme systems supporting it) for hooking up a wide >> variety of C libraries. Matthew> Both of these points rest on the issue of "Scheme systems that support Matthew> it" and I have an uneasy feeling about that. I would be more Matthew> comfortable with a C FFI SRFI that could be supported by any Scheme Matthew> system. Sure, we all would be. You deleted the part of my post that referred to that. The point is that many Scheme systems *already* support a SRFI-50-style FFI. Matthew> That doesn't help implementations that can _only_ provide a Pika-style Matthew> or JNI-style FFI, however. Instead code will be written to support Matthew> the present FFI and will need to be rewritten before they can be of Matthew> any use to other implementations that couldn't provide this FFI. Again, I referred to lots of code that *already* is written for a SRFI-50-style FFI, and that would need to be rewritten anyway for a JNI- or Pika-style FFI. Matthew> I'm mildly confused by this last statement -- are the intentions still Matthew> to finalize SRFI-50 without resolving the issues brought up on the Matthew> mailing list [...] I'm mildly confused by your statement. We haven't formulated our intention yet. However, as Richard has explained, it is so far not our intention to change SRFI 50 into a Pika- or JNI-style FFI. Matthew> It's my understanding that any existing final SRFI _could_ be Matthew> implemented by every Scheme implementation with primarily minor Matthew> changes -- most can even be implemented entirely in Scheme. That's understanding is mistaken. A short look reveals at least: SRFI 0 SRFI 4 SRFI 6 SRFI 10 SRFI 14 SRFI 17 SRFI 18 SRFI 21 SRFI 22 SRFI 30 to have the same property. A more strict interpretation would yield more. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla