posting to list due to absent-minded reply buttons... 2009/9/29 Andy Wingo <[email protected]>: > On Mon 28 Sep 2009 09:14, John Cowan <[email protected]> writes: >> If it makes no sense for a Scheme system to offer a C FFI, it
"C FFI" is a misnomer. Try "Native ABI", which exists in a JVM world (JNI) , the CLR (as unmanaged code), and most every other platform imaginable. I did neglect to consider the implications of a VM FFI, but that is frequently addressed through system binding conventions (e.g. java-dot notation). > A C standard FFI interface, on the Scheme level, would make a good SRFI. > It's not relevant to the standardization process of Scheme itself, > though. Since I started the thread, I am inclined to disagree. SRFIs have a different compliance-nature than the Reports. And *every* Scheme implementation I have seen has a native ABI of some description, even if you have to recompile the interpreter to use it (e.g. SIOD). Since it is a feature of every implementation it *should* be standardized so that we can actually rely on it. Now that I consider it, I would almost be willing to make a case for Thing1 FFI standardization but I tend to think of Thing1 as being a more pure lambda-calculus platform - which would mean that I'd be wanting to wrap the FFI in a state monad, which means devising a sexp-friendly monadic syntax, which means...well I'm not going there :) _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
