commit: Allow local names in WITH-FOREIGN-SLOTS

[Luís Oliveira]

I agree with your proposed improvement. Could you prepare a pull request?

Thanks,
Luís

On Sun, 5 Sep 2021 at 04:16, Madhu <enometh at meer.net> wrote:

>
> I notice this commit to CFFI:
>
>
>
> * commit 743a90251e5a4407147a20bd8354df03a87ca46d
> Author:     stacksmith <stacksmith at users.noreply.github.com>
> AuthorDate: Thu Aug 19 06:34:28 2021 -0700
> Commit:     GitHub <noreply at github.com>
> CommitDate: Thu Aug 19 14:34:28 2021 +0100
>
>     Allow local names in WITH-FOREIGN-SLOTS
>
>     It remains compatible with existing code, but accepts additional
> formats for bindings:
>     1) (name slot-name) - just like WITH-SLOTS;
>     2) (name :pointer slot-name) - a pointer version.
>
>
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 15:24:52 +0530 I had propsed a similar patch to Luis
> With a slightly different signature.
>
> |
> https://github.com/enometh/cffi/commit/023676a25128786174bbaa8a5df7fdc1d27c3bd3
> | It seems a natural extension to me, though I was not able to
> | document it to my satisfaction and I don't know if it would be too
> | confusing to others.  WDYT - (could clean it up and push it on a
> | separate branch if you had comments.)
>
> The doctring from that patch is reproduced here:
>
> --
> (with-foreign-slots (bindings ptr type) body) - Now each binding can
> be one of these forms:
>
> SLOT-NAME -- binds SLOT-NAME to (FOREIGN-SLOT-VALUE SLOT-NAME)
>
> (:POINTER SLOT-NAME) -- binds SLOT-NAME to (FOREIGN-SLOT-POINTER
> SLOT-NAME)
>
> (VAR-NAME SLOT-NAME) -- binds VAR-NAME to (FOREIGN-SLOT-VALUE
> SLOT-NAME)
>
> (:POINTER (VAR-NAME SLOT-NAME)) -- binds VAR-NAME
> to (FOREIGN-SLOT-POINTER SLOT-NAME)
>
> (VAR-NAME (:POINTER SLOT-NAME)) -- binds VAR-NAME to
> (FOREIGN-SLOT-POINTER SLOT-NAME)
> ---
>
> This proposed syntax is different from what has been implemented by
> stacksmith: The last two forms above correspond to the form
>
>  (name :pointer slot-name)
>
> Common Lisp bindings follow a standard syntax LHS RHS
> and should always be destructurable to a LHS RHS
>
> I believe introducing a nonstandard binding form with 3 elements is
> not in the spirit of common lisp syntax and it will only necessitate
> unnecessary special-casing for further macrology
>
> I would encourage stacksmith to consider this point and try to adopt
> the syntax I proposed for extending with-foreign-slots
>
> Or would it be possible to support both these forms in addition to the
> new 3 element binding form
>
> It is still early and perhaps that the syntax can be fixed before it
> is cast in stone - I'm hoping Luis can cooperate
>
>
> --
Luís Oliveira
http://kerno.org/~luis/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/cffi-devel/attachments/20210905/96aba826/attachment.html>