() Paul Smith <[email protected]>
() Sun, 18 Sep 2011 15:28:00 -0400
[new impl]
That's better than what I had before, but I still have some concerns.
For example, what if a Guile call wanted to return a list? I can use
display as above, but the list will be enclosed in parentheses, which is
not how make displays lists. Is there a clean way to handle this?
"Clean" in what way? Everything depends on what the expected (valid) use
of this facility would be. Could you give some examples (w/ failure cases)?
I could write a function then invoke it with scm_map() (right?) but this
seems like it might be work.
Everything is work. Even play is work (but hopefully more fun/interesting).
Also what if the data structure is more complex, where some elements of the
list are lists themselves, etc.? I can "flatten" the entire thing out, I
suppose.
Yes.
Or I could ignore them as above and require the Guile scripting to
convert the list into a string before returning it.
Right. The protocol is internal; you can choose 60/40 or 40/60.
I think concomitant w/ this particular hacking it would nice to implement
some of the make functions (e.g., ‘patsubst’) in Scheme. Enough of that
and you will end up {in,con}verting the "embedding" effort to an "extending"
effort as suggested by Ludo -- YHBW! :-D
