[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Guile and Swig
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: Guile and Swig |
Date: |
Sat, 20 Apr 2013 15:51:16 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.130005 (Ma Gnus v0.5) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hi!
Dmitry Bogatov <address@hidden> skribis:
> Is using SWIG[1] is endorsed for writing Guile wrappers to C library? I
> make such bindings for libircclient[2] for my project, but it would be
> nice, if it would find way to official Guile tree. Are here some
> guidelines about it?
As Daniel noted, this may not be a good idea these days. Besides, Guile
2.0 comes with two nice ways to write bindings: the FFI in the (system
foreign) module, and its C API. It’s not automatic, but it many cases
you may be able to come up with some level of project-specific
automation on top of these.
> Also, question of style of Lisp code. It seems, that most common style
> is `(action object arg1 ...)` and I find making object callable is more
> elegant: `(object #:action arg1 ...)`. Is it discouraged?
I’ve never seen that second style in Scheme or even Lisp code.
Even GOOPS, Guile’s object oriented layer, which derives from CLOS
(Common Lisp’s), uses the first style.
Ludo’.