Re: [Chicken-users] Using c code from interpreted code

[Kon Lovett]

>
<snip>
> > In general there is never a reason to use the inline egg. (It is very
> > nifty but for your purpose overkill.) In fact the easiest way to
> > access a "foreign" library from Chicken is to use SWIG.
> Ok for not using inline.
> For SWIG, I agree it might be the easiest way but I'm not sure I  
> like it.
> I used it for writing opengl and glut bindings for ruby and it  
> generated
> more code than hand written bindings.

Yes.

> It makes me wonder another thing : with chicken, we wrap c code in  
> scheme
> (either the whole code, or only call to c functions) but in ruby,  
> we makes the
> bindings from the c side, up to ruby (i.e. we write c code that  
> corresponds to
> the way ruby is implemented). Although I prefer the chicken way (and
> don't see any reason to want to not do so), is-it possible to do
> the other way ?

Sort of. There is no support for it. See runtime.c & chicken.h in the  
Chicken source.

There is support for calling compiled Scheme from C though. C->Scheme- 
>C->... is possible. Chicken is a compiler & libraries so it can be  
used in an embedded fashion.

> Thank you,
> mt