From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: rm@fabula.de Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: What replaces scm_register_module_xxx (Doc update?) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:24:23 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <20020808182423.GB24162@www> References: <20020808134824.GB23831@www> <20020808102103.021cdc0c.dsmith@altustech.com> <874re5mnfs.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> <20020808161958.GA24162@www> <20020808135930.137432c9.dsmith@altustech.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1028830344 17897 127.0.0.1 (8 Aug 2002 18:12:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 18:12:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17crll-0004eL-00 for ; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 20:12:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17crmU-0000vM-00; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 14:13:06 -0400 Original-Received: from www.elogos.de ([212.18.192.92]) by fencepost.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17crlt-0000pX-00 for ; Thu, 08 Aug 2002 14:12:29 -0400 Original-Received: by www.elogos.de (Postfix, from userid 5001) id 8972E1049A6; Thu, 8 Aug 2002 20:24:23 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: "Dale P. Smith" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020808135930.137432c9.dsmith@altustech.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1019 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1019 On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 01:59:30PM -0400, Dale P. Smith wrote: > > 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. That was the nice thing about scm_register_module_xxx - the semantic was clear: the init function given to it was supposed to set up all the fuctions/ bindings for the module given in the name parameter. As a bonus one got delayed loading since the init function got only called when the module was 'use'd. > It's not that big of a problem if you > split up different "modules" into different C files. ... one of the reasons i started doing this in mod_guile ;-) > 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. I just wanted to veryfy that this appoach is "blessed" -- and maybe point out a weak spot in the documentation and API. Ralf > 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 > dsmith@altustech.com | http://cleveland.lug.net > 440-746-9000 x339 | > > _______________________________________________ > Guile-devel mailing list > Guile-devel@gnu.org > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel