This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Hi! >>>>> Clark McGrew writes: CM> Is there any particular reason people seem to prefer libffi to CM> ffcall? Ignorance of alternatives is my main reason. It would be nice to see some cross-pollination go on between these packages. CM> I'm only familiar with ffcall, and it seems OK. I have some code CM> that does essentially the same thing as the libffi module, but CM> I've never got around to packaging it. Could you put up a snapshot somewhere? I like Bruno Haible's work, and I suspect that ffcall and your wrappers will be the next part of the puzzle. I've looked at Marius' approach for wrapping GTK+, and it is exactly what I hoped somebody would do (i.e. use libtool libraries the way I wanted them to be used). Basically all I want is a good way to wrap shared libraries from Scheme, without having to modify those libraries. This will be very powerful, and really help the development of packages such as Gush. CM> PPPS: As far as I can see, the only advantage ffcall has to ffi CM> is that you can create a callback for C directly in scheme. That's *really* important, especially for a package like GNU Argp, which I desperately want to use in Gush. Thanks for the info, -- Gordon Matzigkeit <gord@fig.org> //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/) Lovers of freedom, unite! \// I use GNU (http://www.gnu.org/) Copyright (C) 1998 FIG.org; the creator offers you this gift and wants it to remain free. See http://www.fig.org/freedom.html for details. This work may be copied, modified and distributed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html.