From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: William S Fulton Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user,gmane.comp.programming.swig Subject: Re: [Swig-user] swig guile2 Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:14:36 +0000 Message-ID: <4D8CF7AC.7090706@fultondesigns.co.uk> References: <4D87B5D2.5040800@fultondesigns.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1301084113 7410 80.91.229.12 (25 Mar 2011 20:15:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:15:13 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-user@gnu.org, swig-user@lists.sourceforge.net, Matthias Koeppe To: Tristan Colgate Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 25 21:15:09 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@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 1Q3DPU-0004Mz-Mh for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:15:08 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53330 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q3DPS-0004Se-1g for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:15:02 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37998 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q3DPD-0004S1-Gv for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:14:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q3DPC-0002dv-40 for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:14:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ww0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:36531) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q3DPB-0002di-Pl for guile-user@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:14:46 -0400 Original-Received: by wwb39 with SMTP id 39so1010226wwb.30 for ; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:14:44 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.216.143.7 with SMTP id k7mr1062344wej.95.1301084083989; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:14:43 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [188.28.137.41] (188.28.137.41.threembb.co.uk [188.28.137.41]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z50sm460035weq.47.2011.03.25.13.14.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:14:42 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8 In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 74.125.82.49 X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:8553 gmane.comp.programming.swig:17120 Archived-At: On 22/03/11 08:16, Tristan Colgate wrote: > On 21 March 2011 20:32, William S Fulton wrote: > >> Are you proposing a 2nd SWIG Guile module in addition to the current module? > > The code as it stands is exactly that, a new module. I have worked > under the assumption that breaking the existing guile support was > taboo. > >> I am no guile user, so can't help on the Guile side. The guile SWIG module >> is suffering neglect and doesn't seem to work with modern versions of Guile >> - the test-suite fails for me. Only very rarely are there Guile queries on >> the SWIG mailing list, so suspect it isn't used much. Would it make sense to >> drop the older Guile interface altogether and just use Guile 2? > > The existing guile module support the gh_ interface and the older > version of the SCM interface. It also doesn't work with guiles current > GC. It's entirely useless for the current version of guile. I had > assumed that since SWIG still ships it, enough people care about > legacy guile support to not want it broken. > > I've only just started looking into getting the test-suite working > with my guile2 work, but I do intend on getting it to the point where > it all passes. > If it all passes, it will then be good enough to commit to trunk and to be included in future SWIG releases. Please discuss on swig-devel if you get to this stage. > For me personally, the old guile module is no longer useful. > However, guile 2.0 is not widely deployed in distributions yet and > that may take some time. > >> BTW, there >> is the swig -scm option for guile 1.6+. So there seems to be GH and SCM and >> now guile 2 API... does that sound right that there are so many C interfaces >> or is your Guile 2 interface just SCM? > > The -scm support works by mapping the old SCM interface to the GH > interface.. Almost all the scm_ calls used by the existing guile > module are deprecated. I tried implementing and -scm2 option within > the existing module but it was more awkward than I could bare. > > I'm not sure that there is going to be enormous support for this > within the guile community either really. Guile 2 ships with a new FFI > and using that is, obviosuly, of more interest to them. I've struggled > wrapping legacy APIs with it though and SWIG really is rather good. > Well if you get the new version up to scratch perhaps SWIG could just support Guile 2 and later unless someone really objects. The older Guile would then require earlier versions of SWIG. William