On 16/11/11 09:41, Ray Dillinger wrote: > The problem is not simply that "everyone does it differently." > The problem is that insofar as implementations are different > and the environments upon which they are hosted are different, > there is no possible way for "everyone" to do FFI the same > way.
Despite the valid objections raised here, common cross-implementation FFI layers (only for C) have been created for R6RS with a reasonable degree of success. See Nausicaa and Spells. These APIs prove to be perfectly functional for a large majority of library binding tasks, though the internal implementation may be rather hairy. I believe there would be absolutely no harm in specifying a minimal subset of these rather low-level APIs as a WG2 library, all of which are optional anyway. In my opinion it's probably too early for JVM and CLR, given that there are only a few active implementations on these platforms. Unfortunately these APIs have already been rejected for WG2, so this is a shout into the void. ;) Cheers, David _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
