[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h)

From: Martin Grabmueller
Subject: Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h)
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 11:12:01 +0200 (MET DST)

> From: Marius Vollmer <address@hidden>
> Date: 01 May 2001 21:37:55 +0200
> Yes.  What do people think of the GH interface, in general?

At first, I tried to use only GH functions for embedding Guile, but as
others have already mentioned, I didn't get too far.  The first thing
I missed were the validation macros, because you don't get useful
error messages when relying on the GH procedures for error checking.
The second thing was that using the snarfing machinery was so
convenient that I did want to use it.

That's why my embedding applications and glue libraries all use the
SCM interface.

If we wanted people to use GH, we would have to improve it a lot, but
that would result in a second SCM interface.  That would duplicate a
lot of code.  Also, I think that a lot of the SCM interface is pretty
stable too, so using proceedures like scm_make_string or scm_cons is
safe (wrt future compatibility) anyway.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]