I agree with your proposed improvement. Could you prepare a pull request? Thanks, Luís
On Sun, 5 Sep 2021 at 04:16, Madhu <enom...@meer.net> wrote: > > I notice this commit to CFFI: > > > > * commit 743a90251e5a4407147a20bd8354df03a87ca46d > Author: stacksmith <stacksm...@users.noreply.github.com> > AuthorDate: Thu Aug 19 06:34:28 2021 -0700 > Commit: GitHub <nore...@github.com> > CommitDate: Thu Aug 19 14:34:28 2021 +0100 > > Allow local names in WITH-FOREIGN-SLOTS > > It remains compatible with existing code, but accepts additional > formats for bindings: > 1) (name slot-name) - just like WITH-SLOTS; > 2) (name :pointer slot-name) - a pointer version. > > > On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 15:24:52 +0530 I had propsed a similar patch to Luis > With a slightly different signature. > > | > https://github.com/enometh/cffi/commit/023676a25128786174bbaa8a5df7fdc1d27c3bd3 > | It seems a natural extension to me, though I was not able to > | document it to my satisfaction and I don't know if it would be too > | confusing to others. WDYT - (could clean it up and push it on a > | separate branch if you had comments.) > > The doctring from that patch is reproduced here: > > -- > (with-foreign-slots (bindings ptr type) body) - Now each binding can > be one of these forms: > > SLOT-NAME -- binds SLOT-NAME to (FOREIGN-SLOT-VALUE SLOT-NAME) > > (:POINTER SLOT-NAME) -- binds SLOT-NAME to (FOREIGN-SLOT-POINTER > SLOT-NAME) > > (VAR-NAME SLOT-NAME) -- binds VAR-NAME to (FOREIGN-SLOT-VALUE > SLOT-NAME) > > (:POINTER (VAR-NAME SLOT-NAME)) -- binds VAR-NAME > to (FOREIGN-SLOT-POINTER SLOT-NAME) > > (VAR-NAME (:POINTER SLOT-NAME)) -- binds VAR-NAME to > (FOREIGN-SLOT-POINTER SLOT-NAME) > --- > > This proposed syntax is different from what has been implemented by > stacksmith: The last two forms above correspond to the form > > (name :pointer slot-name) > > Common Lisp bindings follow a standard syntax LHS RHS > and should always be destructurable to a LHS RHS > > I believe introducing a nonstandard binding form with 3 elements is > not in the spirit of common lisp syntax and it will only necessitate > unnecessary special-casing for further macrology > > I would encourage stacksmith to consider this point and try to adopt > the syntax I proposed for extending with-foreign-slots > > Or would it be possible to support both these forms in addition to the > new 3 element binding form > > It is still early and perhaps that the syntax can be fixed before it > is cast in stone - I'm hoping Luis can cooperate > > > -- Luís Oliveira http://kerno.org/~luis/
