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: FFI supports callbacks Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:04:22 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87bp8ej3w3.fsf@gnu.org> <87k4n2hh5j.fsf@gnu.org> <87k4n0w7it.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1283785988 15257 80.91.229.12 (6 Sep 2010 15:13:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 15:13:08 +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 Sep 06 17:13:03 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OsdNR-0003Q6-Ma for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:12:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56878 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OsdNQ-0004T2-QY for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:12:56 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47178 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OsdMb-0004Ag-O2 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:12:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OsdMa-0003QQ-Ei for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:12:05 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:43006 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OsdMa-0003IY-CO; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:12:04 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF93CD3F3D; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 11:11:09 -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=03w8PjovddX5 FO7/U4XwfQXfhd4=; b=VTGrxrJAHdHa/AzJWNv3qCD7VHOo42JQ8Gx50S0KhGtJ 3QARpMUp+8+2OtMzD4nsjWmNrpKQx2An+Q/lzI7VEZ0+rBP6yaf97AWVrIbiWBbE jMFS3G1p1grrzy66X+N+HZ2SMIUaXgoTkyfzBXwC9265LvOFVNw6rmzJaLyHCwY= 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=gnjlqn tm4KEEruHIKvOh05ETP0WcJdTFhl6kC5un4VloGXewipNMqfngaVDWnEnjtU7D6J uMIUJyW715O0oeisQLyR/Yc5rjod2+CRa8bnMP+1y9dO24WbwQPAInVBYSi2mP2e /hR9WtA6zMajmukT02xzv7U3bk2NIsefZMPcQ= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4485D3F3C; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 11:11:08 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (unknown [79.156.147.138]) (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 20CC5D3F39; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 11:11:06 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87k4n0w7it.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Sun, 05 Sep 2010 17:10:34 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: FA39A6E4-B9C8-11DF-B129-030CEE7EF46B-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:10872 Archived-At: Greets, On Sun 05 Sep 2010 17:10, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > >> BTW, while we=E2=80=99re at it, how about make-foreign-function =3D> poi= nter->procedure? > > We briefly discussed this on IRC. One issue with the > =E2=80=98pointer->procedure=E2=80=99 name is that =E2=80=98->=E2=80=99 pr= ocedures are most of the time > one-argument procedures, whereas =E2=80=98make-foreign-function=E2=80=99 = has 3 mandatory > arguments. > > However, it occurred to me that what confuses me most about > =E2=80=98make-foreign-function=E2=80=99 is that it actually makes a Schem= e procedure out > of a foreign function. > > Conversely, =E2=80=98procedure->pointer=E2=80=99 really makes a foreign f= unction out of > a Scheme procedure. > > In addition, I like the idea of having names that show the symmetry of > these two procedures. > > So, what do you think? :-) I guess I'm OK with it. The new names do convey the types better to the programmer. I'm hesitant regarding "pointer" though; the name is just so general. I guess I prefer "machine-pointer" or something. But I would also be OK with the change as you propose it. Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/