[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h)
From: |
Dale P. Smith |
Subject: |
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h) |
Date: |
Thu, 03 May 2001 13:55:56 -0400 |
Rob Browning wrote:
> However, I will say, after talking with Bill here for a bit, that the
> *biggest* problem with the gh_ interface is probably just it's lack of
> a clear mission statement. i.e. Why does it exist, and what is it
> for?
Well, it (supposedly) provides for version independence. When you use
the scm_ interface, you use a lot of macros that know about the details
of internal structures. The parallel gh_ routines are function calls.
It should be possible to not have to recompile or even relink your app
if you use the gh_ interface, even if the layout of SCM or other data
structures change. Look at the difference between gh_car and SCM_CAR
for example.
-Dale
--
Dale P. Smith
Treasurer, Cleveland Linux Users Group http://cleveland.lug.net
Senior Systems Consultant, Altus Technologies Corporation
address@hidden
440-746-9000 x309
- Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h), (continued)
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h), Chris Cramer, 2001/05/02
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h), Martin Grabmueller, 2001/05/02
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h), Neil Jerram, 2001/05/02
Re: The GH interface. (was: Patch for gh.h), Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/08