kumoyuki at gmail.com
Tue Sep 29 04:02:21 EDT 2009
posting to list due to absent-minded reply buttons...
2009/9/29 Andy Wingo <wingo at pobox.com>:
> On Mon 28 Sep 2009 09:14, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> 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,
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
More information about the r6rs-discuss