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.