Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Extension language

[Charles Duffy]

On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 23:09, Miles Bader wrote:
> Colin Walters <address@hidden> writes:
> > > It's not the "wrapping" that's tricky: it's building up "stuff" around
> > > it to make a high-level programming environment that strikes a chord.
> > > And that "stuff" is likely to be highly language specific.
> > 
> > Like what "stuff"?
> 
> I can't say that it's what Tom means, but I'd rather like to be able to
> have my script get reltables from tla as some sort of real table, for
> instance, without all the parsing/blah-blah.

So implement that in C (in libtla or libtlahelper or somesuch), and then
have a language-specific wrapper as part of the binding. The advantage
of having this higher-level functionality implemented in C is that
having such an API will help guide the individual scripting interfaces
such that they'll have some reasonable degree of similarity between each
other (encouraging improved readability, portability of memes, and such)
while still allowing the details of the interface to be appropriate to
the language at hand.

As someone who generally finds either shell, scheme or python to be the
right tool for a given scripting task, I'd find it quite unfortunate if
there were only One True Scripting Interface for tla.