Re: [Chicken-users] "Dynamically Loading" non-entry-point code

[Daniel B. Faken]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, felix wrote:
> Daniel B. Faken wrote:
> > 
> > I need to call it from C (because I want the library to basically load 
> > some of its own bindings), so I defined this in my "scmif" interface
> > layer (see below)
> > 
> > Do you see any problem with this?  (I wasn't too sure what you meant by 
> > "it gets complicated")   Will this work with arbitrarily nested layers of 
> > callback?
> > 
<snip>

> This could actually work, but I'm not totally sure.
> Does it crash? ;-)
> 
> cheers,
> felix

  Sorry, I should have mentioned that; it *seems* to work just peachy.  I 
have happily been able to simplify three separate packages this way.  My 
question was more regarding if there was some theoretical problem..
I.e. what exactly would calling it 'just' from scheme (as per your 
suggestion) do differently from my C-calling-Scheme + one-layer-of-indirection
code?

  FWIW, I've also used this kind of indirection technique to add scheme
bindings to C functions at run-time and to add a safety layer so functions 
can be called whether the Chicken toplevel is active or not (thanks for 
adding CHICKEN_is_running() :) ).

cheers,
Daniel