[cffi-devel] Re: [fetter-devel] Quick CFFI update

[Luis Oliveira]

On 5/jul/2005, at 03:52, Kenny Tilton wrote:
> OK, but why is "the minimum necessary" a Good Thing, aside from 
> Occam's Razor and Einstein's "as simple as possible but no simpler"? 
> My guess is that it is easier to invent one uniform high-level API 
> atop a few low-level FFI capabilities than take a dozen high-level 
> APIs and come up with a consistent super-high-level API. But no one is 
> saying that except me. And CY. :)

And I. Well, and the more I put effort into CFFI the more it seems to 
be true.


> Man, I am /really/ curious about the Actual Landscape. Here is one 
> gap: has the new killer CLisp FFI been ported to the Mac OS X version 
> yet? Though in that case i would not consider this a gap in 
> Hello-C/CFFI, since the old CLisp FFI was pretty weak and pretty much 
> asked for trouble (such as being left out of portable FFI projects).

Heh, guess what, not only does clisp's ffi work on OSX (at least the 
CVS version), but it also passes all CFFI tests:

Doing 32 pending tests of 32 tests total.
  [...]
No tests failed.
0 errors, 0 warnings


> Come to think of it, that raises another question: does CFFI's 
> high-level API rock as well as CLisp's new FFI on win32 and Unix? I am 
> thinking of things like a lambda form being a Lisp callback from C.

Not yet, I guess that's a goal though. At least for me.

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