[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FFI again
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: FFI again |
Date: |
Sun, 06 Oct 2013 23:29:31 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
> libxml, maybe. libgnutls I would continue to provide a dedicated
> wrapper for. It's very tricky to get the Lisp-to-C type matching
> robust in an FFI, and if there's a problem in the FFI you probably
> break all existing modules by fixing it. In the meantime, if the FFI
IIUC this is the kind of problem I was referring to, which would be
mostly avoided by using an FFI system based on hand-written C wrappers:
you don't have to export to Lisp all the C-level details.
Stefan
- FFI again, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/05
- Re: FFI again, joakim, 2013/10/05
- Re: FFI again, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/05
- Re: FFI again, joakim, 2013/10/05
- Re: FFI again, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/06
- Re: FFI again, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/10/06
- Re: FFI again, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/06
- Re: FFI again, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/10/06
- Re: FFI again, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2013/10/06
- Re: FFI again,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: FFI again, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2013/10/07
- Re: FFI again, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/07
- Re: FFI again, Andy Moreton, 2013/10/07
- Re: FFI again, Stefan Monnier, 2013/10/07
- Re: FFI again, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/10/08
- Re: FFI again, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2013/10/07
- Re: FFI again, Richard Stallman, 2013/10/07
- Re: FFI again, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2013/10/08
- Re: FFI again, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/10/08
Re: FFI again, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/10/05