<snip>
In general there is never a reason to use the inline egg. (It is very
nifty but for your purpose overkill.) In fact the easiest way to
access a "foreign" library from Chicken is to use SWIG.
Ok for not using inline.
For SWIG, I agree it might be the easiest way but I'm not sure I
like it.
I used it for writing opengl and glut bindings for ruby and it
generated
more code than hand written bindings.
Yes.
It makes me wonder another thing : with chicken, we wrap c code in
scheme
(either the whole code, or only call to c functions) but in ruby,
we makes the
bindings from the c side, up to ruby (i.e. we write c code that
corresponds to
the way ruby is implemented). Although I prefer the chicken way (and
don't see any reason to want to not do so), is-it possible to do
the other way ?
Sort of. There is no support for it. See runtime.c & chicken.h in the
Chicken source.
There is support for calling compiled Scheme from C though. C->Scheme-
>C->... is possible. Chicken is a compiler & libraries so it can be
used in an embedded fashion.
Thank you,
mt
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
