I am not sure SWIG ever worked in Chicken 4, and furthermore I am not sure SWIG itself is that well maintained. At this point Chicken provides a number of good tools for FFI, so there really is no point in trying to support SWIG.
-Ivan On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 6:53 AM, Peter Bex <pe...@more-magic.net> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I was browsing our code a bit and noticed that we have a special > "swig pointer" type. However, there seems no way to construct > it from Scheme and as far as I remember, SWIG support has bitrotted > to the point of being useless. This is also mentioned in the > manual at http://wiki.call-cc.org/man/4/Unit%20lolevel#foreign-pointers > Besides, I don't really understand why SWIG needs a special pointer > type for it. > > If you look at the documentation at the SWIG site itself, it is full > of pre-CHICKEN 4 anachonisms; it still mentions only "units", no > modules, it refers to TinyCLOS as the go-to library for OOP, it mentions > a program called "chicken-config" which has been removed before we > even migrated CHICKEN to the subversion repository. Behold: > http://swig.org/Doc3.0/Chicken.html > > Since nobody is really maintaining SWIG support in CHICKEN, it may be > better to just drop compatibility altogether rather than keep lugging > this undead legacy stuff around. Removing some of this may also make > some pointer operations faster as we don't need to check for the SWIG > pointer type. This is probably a very minimal improvement, though. > > So what do you all think? Should we drop SWIG support for CHICKEN 5? > Is anyone still using SWIG? > > Cheers, > Peter > > _______________________________________________ > Chicken-hackers mailing list > Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers > _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers