Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Nit

[Colin Walters]

On Sat, 2003-10-18 at 19:53, Miles Bader wrote:

> If, say, Tom sticks a small scheme interpreter in tla* and says `OK that's
> the extension language,' then all the tla internal hooks would say
> `do_scheme_call (blah, blah, blah)'

Ugh.  It would be way better to just make libarch be friendly to
wrapping by other programming languages.  Then there's no need for these
kinds of internal hooks at all.  The extension should drive tla, because
it's in a much better position to know exactly what it needs to do; not
the other way around.

> [...], and if you want to hook up your python script or
> something, you need a scheme->python interface layer.

Double ugh.

> IOW, the amount of effort required to interface python scripts seems more or
> less the same.

I don't think so.  Wrapping C libraries in Python (and other languages
in general) is a well understood problem with well understood
solutions.  Interfacing with some embedded scheme or whatever inside a
library that e.g. exits on nearly every error is quite a different
thing.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part