[fetter-devel] Quick CFFI update

[Luis Oliveira]

On 4/jul/2005, at 05:49, Kenny Tilton wrote:
> What stops you from simply eyeballing the different Lisps to see if 
> they have the necessary hooks?

Ok, I will do this.


> btw, Are all patches already determined to be necessary going to be 
> accepted by the maintainers of the Lisp in question?

Regarding SBCL, it *is* a bug, so I'm pretty sure it'll be accepted. 
About clisp I'm not so sure as it's not a bug per se. Also, IIRC, other 
lisps might have the same issue as clisp (having to specify with 
library the var/function is in) so I guess I might have to add a way to 
specify that anyway. I think James is just trying not to specify that 
unless absolutely necessary.


> Basically it sounds like you are somehow confident this story will 
> have a happy ending, and I get the feeling that even if not, not much 
> time will have been lost, so I am shaking my head but not worried.
>
> How long /will/ this exercise take?

Well, I guess the UFFI approach would be safer (and easier even), but I 
feel this approach is better. I also have the feeling that with the 
low-level operators cffi exports, it'll be easier to support C++ (for 
Fetter too). (And James plans an Objective C bridge someday).

But if you feel I'm wrong, please do say so! I'm certainly not very 
experienced in these kinds of decisions.

-- 
Luís Oliveira
http://student.dei.uc.pt/~lmoliv/
Equipa Portuguesa do Translation Project
http://www2.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard/po/registry.cgi?team=pt