Hi,
I feel like an idiot asking, but what exactly are the sequence of
commands needed to make the following C function callable from the
chicken interpretor? on Linux.
//test.c
double test(double x){
return x * x;
}
//test.i
%module test
%{
double test(double);
%}
thanks,
tato
__
2007/4/2, Tato Norren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi,
I feel like an idiot asking, but what exactly are the sequence of
commands needed to make the following C function callable from the
chicken interpretor? on Linux.
//test.c
double test(double x){
return x * x;
}
//test.i
%module test
%{
double
2007/4/2, minh thu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2007/4/2, Tato Norren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
> I feel like an idiot asking, but what exactly are the sequence of
> commands needed to make the following C function callable from the
> chicken interpretor? on Linux.
>
> //test.c
> double test(double x){
hi,
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 12:35:05PM -0700, Kon Lovett wrote:
> Sigh, please get 2.6.5; this is fixed.
it now works as expected on my system!
thanks very much for the fixes!
bye,
hans.
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http:
On 4/2/07, Tato Norren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I feel like an idiot asking,
Never feel like an idiot among the chicken-users. Unless you get duped
by one of the April Fool's jokes. :-)
but what exactly are the sequence of
commands needed to make the following C function callable from t
Hallo,
On 4/2/07, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Neat, huh? There's also the easy-ffi, lazy-ffi, etc. Chicken's really
good at this kind of thing, if you're the kind of person who likes
having choices.
I guess there are so many ffi choices because it must be a pain
to write pu
2007/4/2, Alex Queiroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hallo,
On 4/2/07, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Neat, huh? There's also the easy-ffi, lazy-ffi, etc. Chicken's really
> good at this kind of thing, if you're the kind of person who likes
> having choices.
>
I guess there are so ma
Hallo,
On 4/2/07, minh thu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, in fact I found very practical to made that sort of stuff.
Write your C code then just a bit of Scheme so that Chicken is aware
of the C code. Compile, that's it.
I was talking about pure C modules.
Cheers,
--
-alex
_
On 4/2/07, Alex Queiroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/2/07, minh thu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, in fact I found very practical to made that sort of stuff.
> Write your C code then just a bit of Scheme so that Chicken is aware
> of the C code. Compile, that's it.
I was talking about
On 4/2/07, minh thu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Graham, I did the example that way because I like to separate C from Scheme :
- if I want to move more to C side for performance, it will be easier
- I keep in my head the possibility to make the library available as
widely as possible by keeping it
On Apr 2, 2007, at 2:48 AM, Hans Bulfone wrote:
hi,
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 12:35:05PM -0700, Kon Lovett wrote:
Sigh, please get 2.6.5; this is fixed.
it now works as expected on my system!
Excellent. You are right about making sure 'seconds->local-time'
returns values with the same mea
> Oh my, we are a serious bunch.
Heheh, yeah, it's amazing soo many people believed I was serious!
Just to clarify: I do *NOT* plan to rewrite Svnwiki in any other
programming language or Scheme implementation. Using Chicken Scheme
has turned out to be an *excellent* choice. :-)
Alejo.
http://a
Hallo,
On 4/2/07, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you mean writing Chicken code, compiling it to a library, and
linking it into a "pure C" application? Or, similarly, embedding
Chicken code in a C application? I haven't done that myself; I have
done callbacks from a C library, and
Hallo,
What's the usual way to write programs with several files?
(require-extension) or (unit)/(use) declarations? (unit)/(use) seems
the natural way, but since they do not work during interpretation they
cannot be used for RAD.
Cheers,
--
-alex
___
On 4/2/07, Alex Queiroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm talking about writing code to be require'd by a Chicken app,
in pure C. A "pure C module." :-)
OK. Then, back to your statement:
I guess there are so many ffi choices because it must be a pain
to write pure C extensions, judged by wh
On 4/2/07, Alex Queiroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What's the usual way to write programs with several files?
(require-extension) or (unit)/(use) declarations? (unit)/(use) seems
the natural way, but since they do not work during interpretation they
cannot be used for RAD.
Note that (use)
Hallo,
On 4/2/07, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess there are so many ffi choices because it must be a pain
> to write pure C extensions, judged by what I've seen from chicken's
> output.
No, I don't think it follows that there are many FFI choices because
writing pure C exte
Hallo,
On 4/2/07, Graham Fawcett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Personally, I've only ever used (unit) when I was building a shared
library from multiple files. It is definitely a compiler-oriented
directive.
I guess that's the intended use of (unit). I'm using (include) now.
Cheers,
--
-al
On 4/2/07, Alex Queiroz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What's the usual way to write programs with several files?
(require-extension) or (unit)/(use) declarations? (unit)/(use) seems
the natural way, but since they do not work during interpretation they
cannot be used for RAD.
Just do: (inclu
I know what you mean. The other day, while writing a pure assembly
module coded to the C++ ABI, I found myself thinking, "this just isn't
tedious enough". So saying, I renounced all foreign function
interface interfaces, and plunged into the murky and unfathomable
depths of Chicken's C.Time
Hallo,
On 4/2/07, Zbigniew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I know what you mean. The other day, while writing a pure assembly
module coded to the C++ ABI, I found myself thinking, "this just isn't
tedious enough". So saying, I renounced all foreign function
interface interfaces, and plunged into th
Just injecting a bit of humour into the proceedings. No need to take offense.
For what it's worth, though, Graham's explanation is spot-on.
Interfacing to a C function is no more complex in Chicken than it is
in Lua or, for that matter, any other language. In all of these, you
need special call
Hallo,
On 4/2/07, Zbigniew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just injecting a bit of humour into the proceedings. No need to take offense.
Sorry to have misinterpreted you. Back to topic, I guess it's
just a different way of doing things. I'm gonna get used to it. :-)
Cheers,
--
-alex
__
23 matches
Mail list logo
