On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 11:10:13AM +0100, Jos? Bollo wrote: > What I have in mind is that there is no need for a specific IDL: the > language itself is the IDL and the code generator. > > I can add that SCHEME interpreters are small piece of code (that you > don't have to change, pick it and use it). Compilers also exist.
To some extent the whole point of an IDL is being declarative and not Turing-complete, so you can read the declarations and readily translate them to a wide variety of languages. Writing a script that spits out interface definitions in C (we already have several of these) doesn't help produce interface definitions for other languages. Just writing the script in Scheme instead of sh/awk or Python or whatnot doesn't help much. Plus, we don't have a Scheme interpreter in base. If what you mean instead is to invent a new IDL and use S-expressions as the input syntax to avoid needing a real parser, you're pulling on the wrong end of the problem. Parsers are cheap; the semantics of the IDL are the important part. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
