From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: RFC: Foreign objects facility Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 20:05:59 +0200 Message-ID: <87ppk11g8o.fsf@pobox.com> References: <87bnvm52u6.fsf@pobox.com> <87tx9ddfp0.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1398708390 16819 80.91.229.3 (28 Apr 2014 18:06:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 18:06:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 28 20:06:24 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Wepwd-00059V-JN for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 20:06:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45273 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Wepwd-0004CL-6Q for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:06:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42512) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WepwR-00048c-57 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:06:15 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WepwM-0004fj-CS for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:06:11 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:64671 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WepwM-0004e9-7S; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:06:06 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC33D11506; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:06:05 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=575AuofmfFPU MNyCl/vCHBZf7aw=; b=B20dunhTQhIrljJYetqOGHIHkrxWoBtT7XA0djBTTZUE lMuF2JwWe9F2LqP6VuYhU3DxB4szJT0DenPTQ6jLc7KYSHDgL+xHxsK3Kq/M+FeJ SSTlXOMEKHA8TvDrs+cixcJY08dyAc0sCrzqIIjudWguosQizC69z3KNcbIAaFI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=m4DSQL TWp42UOdz/SAN/UVg+NmxxP6dazlsNTb8sU+3PGQtluIYK5qaOdGPSr76OafsCKj hXb00rwSBUnCHyEqZs97z8Y1dedL3sjUuSXK3TLrmy9QLpxkn+ceI7sCqvTPXdcv Wmhz+KsoNR0yWS9uvEYzCXEPBNv2kw07vKZc0= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2CE911505; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:06:05 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from badger (unknown [88.160.190.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E554011504; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:06:02 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87tx9ddfp0.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:24:43 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C2CE9700-CEFF-11E3-B1FE-6F330E5B5709-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 208.72.237.25 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:17112 Archived-At: On Mon 28 Apr 2014 10:24, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > I would have preferred to rebase SMOBs on top of structs, with the added > documentation as to how they can be accessed from Scheme, but I suppose > this is ruled out by the SCM_SETCDR issue above? We can think of doing this in the future, at least as a mostly-compatible shim. The fundamental differences are really the mark functions and the lack of "apply" capability. Getting "apply" working does sound possible though, given applicable structs. Regards, Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/