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: 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)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Re: Strings/chars
Tom Lord
(24 Dec 2003 04:47 UTC)
|
felix <xxxxxx@call-with-current-continuation.org> writes: > 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. That's exactly the flexibility I thought we should give the user. The intereface will be used an awful lot more times than it is implemented. The mere convenience of the implementor isn't worth much. > 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. Ha ha ha ha. Programmers will quickly probe every corner of the interface; if it's so fragile that you can't specify the meaning of the forms, but have to rely on them being used "straightforwardly", then you are nowhere near ready to specify an interface. Thomas