Couple things...
felix
(22 Dec 2003 17:51 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)
|
||
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)
|
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:12:37 +0100, Michael Sperber <xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote: >>>>>> "felix" == felix <xxxxxx@call-with-current-continuation.org> 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