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)
|
> From: Michael Sperber <xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> > >>>>> "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. I think it's not so much a disagreement about possibility as a disagreement about practicality. If the reification of the HLL into C is too hard -- perhaps the reification of C into the HLL is easier. (Personally, I think that the reification of the HLL into C is _not_ too hard, but also that the draft isn't it.) Even beyond the "either or" -- layering the C-into-HLL on top of the HLL-into-C may be (likely will be) distinctly less efficient, in a portable FFI, than just doing C-into-HLL directly. So, yes, complementary (which is all you said), but (a) C-into-HLL may be more than enough functionality and (b) HLL-into-C may be more than needed, and less than necessary. -t