[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: Thu, 03 May 2001 20:17:05 +0200

> From: Rob Browning <address@hidden>
> Date: 03 May 2001 13:08:38 -0500
> "Dale P. Smith" <address@hidden> writes:
> > It should be possible to not have to recompile or even relink your app
> > if you use the gh_ interface, even if the layout of SCM or other data
> > structures change.  Look at the difference between gh_car and SCM_CAR
> > for example.
> Ahh.  Good point.
> Well, if that's considered important and something that the gh_
> interface is intended to guarantee, then we should definitely make
> sure that goal is documented clearly (if it's not already), so we'll
> know we need to add duplicate gh_ functional definitions of many of
> the SCM_ operations.
> We'll still have to answer questions like this, though:
> If there's already a scm_ function that's totally appropriate for
> public use, say scm_less_p, do we need to #define gh_less_p
> scm_less_p, or do we just document that the "public" C level interface
> to guile is the gh_interface plus *some* of the scm_ interface?

I think that all SCM procedures which are exposed to Scheme as
primitives (and which can be used from C as well) are stable enough
and not likely to go away.  So there is no reason too recommend not to
use procedures like scm_less_p, for example.


reply via email to

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