Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?

[Sam Tregar]

On 10 May 2001, Rob Browning wrote:

> Note that unless I'm misunderstanding you, this probably doesn't have
> a lot to do with the gh_ interface.  The "interpreter independence"
> claim for the gh_ interface, I believe meant independence from any
> particular quirks of Aubrey Jaffer's SCM implementation of Scheme from
> which Guile's interpreter originally came.

Ah, ok.  The intent I read into RMS's plans were that a given C program
could use Guile and instantly support people writing extensions in a
number of "Guile-compatible" syntaxes.  This requires a C-interface that
doesn't care what particiular interpreter is being used to parse the code.
Perhaps that's what the gh_ interface could be?  It's certainly a long way
from being that now.  It would probably end up looking more like SWIG than
scm_...

-sam