Re: ffi dependent packaqes

On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 11:41:12AM -0700, Miles Egan wrote:
> Another question: how best to handle FFI-dependent packages?
> 
> Should we leave this to each package?  Try to focus on supporting one
> implementation well?  Do our best to build on the UFFI package?

I'm no expert, but I have worries about uffi's long-term viability in
its current state. I think my position on compatibility layers might be
causing me to be overly harsh, but I don't think that a solution to lack
of standardization is to take the current intersection of the
feature-sets and make it work on 32-bit platforms...

So my advice would be not to have any policy about FFI, and treat it in
much the same way as we treat other possibly-portable extensions.

Christophe
-- 
Jesus College, Cambridge, CB5 8BL                           +44 1223 510 299
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/                  (defun pling-dollar 
(str schar arg) (first (last +))) (make-dispatch-macro-character #\! t)
(set-dispatch-macro-character #\! #\$ #'pling-dollar)


-------------------------------------------------------
Sponsored by:
ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/