[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What replaces scm_register_module_xxx (Doc update?)
From: |
Dale P. Smith |
Subject: |
Re: What replaces scm_register_module_xxx (Doc update?) |
Date: |
Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:59:30 -0400 |
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 18:19:58 +0200
address@hidden wrote:
> I think there's a misunderstanding/misconception here (or, better:
> in guile's current C api). The 'load-c-functions-through-scheme'
> aproach might be fine and all that's needed as long as we only want
> to extend _guile_ (the application) with external libs. But guile
> is inteded to be an embedded srcipting language as well (at least that's
> what the documentation says). If i want my users to be able to script
> some of my applications functionality there's no library i can load
> with 'load-extension' -- of course i could put the tiny scm_* wrapper
> functions into a dll and have _that_ loaded, but i wouldn't call this
> good design practise (oh, i could 'load-extension' my own application
> instead, but that's not really portable ...). Having to provide (and
> deploy!) scm file(s) just to be able to put my functions into different
> modules feels clumsy.
I think it's possible with the (undocumented) scm_c_* functions in
libguile/modules.c. It looks like this is the first stab at providing a
C interface to the module system.
A problem that I see is that there is no way to tell the snarfing system
which module to put things in. It's not that big of a problem if you
split up different "modules" into different C files. In the init
routine for the file, you first call scm_c_define_module, then #include
the .x file, then call scm_c_exports with the names of the symbols you
need to export.
You might want to verify the scm_c_* fucniton names I used.
-Dale
--
Dale P. Smith
Senior Systems Consultant, | Treasurer,
Altus Technologies Corporation | Cleveland Linux Users Group
address@hidden | http://cleveland.lug.net
440-746-9000 x339 |
- What replaces scm_register_module_xxx (Doc update?), rm, 2002/08/08
- Re: What replaces scm_register_module_xxx (Doc update?), Dale P. Smith, 2002/08/08
- Re: What replaces scm_register_module_xxx (Doc update?), Dale P. Smith, 2002/08/08
- Re: What replaces scm_register_module_xxx (Doc update?), Rob Browning, 2002/08/08
- Re: What replaces scm_register_module_xxx (Doc update?), Marius Vollmer, 2002/08/08
- Re: What replaces scm_register_module_xxx (Doc update?), Neil Jerram, 2002/08/08
- Re: What replaces scm_register_module_xxx (Doc update?), rm, 2002/08/09
- Re: What replaces scm_register_module_xxx (Doc update?), Neil Jerram, 2002/08/19
- Re: What replaces scm_register_module_xxx (Doc update?), rm, 2002/08/19
- Re: What replaces scm_register_module_xxx (Doc update?), Matthias Koeppe, 2002/08/09
- Re: What replaces scm_register_module_xxx (Doc update?), rm, 2002/08/09
- Re: What replaces scm_register_module_xxx (Doc update?), Matthias Koeppe, 2002/08/09
- Re: What replaces scm_register_module_xxx (Doc update?), rm, 2002/08/09