Couple things...
felix
(22 Dec 2003 17:51 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: Couple things...
felix
(24 Dec 2003 12:01 UTC)
|
||
Re: Couple things...
Jim Blandy
(24 Dec 2003 16:29 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: Strings/chars
Tom Lord
(24 Dec 2003 04:47 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: Couple things... felix (24 Dec 2003 11:43 UTC)
|
||
Re: Couple things...
tb@xxxxxx
(24 Dec 2003 23:30 UTC)
|
||
Re: Couple things...
Michael Sperber
(27 Dec 2003 18:46 UTC)
|
||
Re: Couple things...
felix
(24 Dec 2003 12:40 UTC)
|
||
Re: Couple things...
Michael Sperber
(26 Dec 2003 15:16 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: Couple things...
felix
(04 Jan 2004 18:51 UTC)
|
||
Re: Couple things...
Tom Lord
(04 Jan 2004 22:13 UTC)
|
||
Re: Couple things...
Michael Sperber
(05 Jan 2004 19:18 UTC)
|
||
Re: Couple things...
Tom Lord
(05 Jan 2004 21:53 UTC)
|
||
Re: Couple things...
Michael Sperber
(05 Jan 2004 19:19 UTC)
|
||
Re: Couple things...
felix
(04 Jan 2004 18:42 UTC)
|
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:12:04 +0100, Michael Sperber <xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote: >>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell <xxxxxx@becket.net> writes: > > Thomas> Um, in C a user definitely has cause to care. Importantly, a > function > Thomas> can be used far more flexibly. Allowing all the forms to be > macros is > Thomas> a pain. > > Felix will point out that allowing forms to be functions is a > performance consideration. > Not only that. It allows the *implementor* maximal flexibility, which I consider more important in this case. Allowing a form to be a function may tempt users to do weird stuff like taking it's address, etc. Remember: on this level (FFI) things can get extremely fragile and tricky. The user of an FFI should be *forced* to use it's forms in a straightforward and simply manner. cheers, felix