Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Couple things... felix (22 Dec 2003 17:54 UTC)
(missing)
Re: Couple things... felix (24 Dec 2003 12:03 UTC)
Re: Couple things... Jim Blandy (24 Dec 2003 16:25 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: Couple things... felix (24 Dec 2003 11:46 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 12:42 UTC)
Re: Couple things... Michael Sperber (26 Dec 2003 15:15 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: Couple things... felix (04 Jan 2004 18:53 UTC)
Re: Couple things... Tom Lord (04 Jan 2004 22:39 UTC)
Re: Couple things... Michael Sperber (05 Jan 2004 19:17 UTC)
Re: Couple things... Tom Lord (05 Jan 2004 22:19 UTC)
Re: Couple things... Michael Sperber (05 Jan 2004 19:19 UTC)
Re: Couple things... felix (04 Jan 2004 18:45 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: Strings/chars Tom Lord (24 Dec 2003 05:11 UTC)

Re: Couple things... Michael Sperber 05 Jan 2004 19:17 UTC

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lord <xxxxxx@emf.net> writes:

Tom> One approach to this, that taken by the draft, is to make an FFI that
Tom> models a substantial part of the semantics of the high-level language
Tom> -- then let the FFI-using programmer fill in the gap between that and
Tom> our target libraries.

Tom> Another approach, that proposed by Felix (if I'm reading right), is to
Tom> make an FFI that captures the semantics of the libraries in a
Tom> first-class way -- then let the FFI-_implementing_ programmer fill in
Tom> the gap between that and his high-level language implementation.

That's also how I'd state it.  To my mind, this means the two
approaches are complementary rather than exclusive.  But Felix seems
to disagree.

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla