[fetter-devel] Re: some FFFI, some sockets

[Kenny Tilton]

Rayiner Hashem wrote:

>>Getting back to your original concern, Rayiner likewise first will
>>produce the Fetter IR (intermediate representation?) and then worry
>>about generating the bindings in some FFI or another. And Rayiner will
>>care only about the API supported by that FFI, not who is underneath.
>>    
>>
>
>In the next few days I'd like to complete the initial design document,
>which is my first milestone. I can leave the FFI bit a little floaty,
>but while writing the design spec, I'll be looking at UFFI (it's
>better documented). It's not a big deal (to me, yet) what Hello-C
>ultimately ends up looking like, though.
>
Yep. UFFI is a good bootstrap target, a good starting point to eyeball 
in developing Fetter. As work proceeds, any deficiency in UFFI gets cure 
in CFFI and eventually that becomes the target of Fetter.

kt