On 01/30/2010 01:25 PM, dherr...@tentpost.com wrote: >> package. I think the second is a better (although marginally more >> complex) behavior, because it increases portability and reduces number >> of people who notice implementation quirks of UFFI package. > > Why load cffi's uffi-compat if ECL has its own UFFI? I don't see the > increase in portability.
Well, the question is whether CFFI has more subtle differences when used on different implementations than "native" UFFI implementations have. OK, I am probably wrong. _______________________________________________ cffi-devel mailing list cffi-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cffi-devel
