On Feb 7, 2007, at 10:41 AM, minh thu wrote:
2007/2/7, minh thu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2007/2/7, Kon Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Feb 7, 2007, at 6:41 AM, minh thu wrote:
>
> > #>!
> > #include <X.h>
> > #include <keysym.h>
> > <#
> >
> > (define-foreign-variable c-escape-key int "XK_Escape")
> > (define escape-key c-escape-key)
> >
> > Do I need to have those two lines too be able to use escape-
key as a
> > Scheme symbol for the C #defined XK_Escape value ?
>
> Umm, depends. Do you want it visible outside of the compilation
unit
> (i.e. exportable)?
The escape-key, yes; the c-escape-key, no.
In fact, if I intend the API to be portable above other system, I
should export
'ESCAPE without being related to the C counterpart, right ?
Once 'ESCAPE-KEY' is defined the relationship to the "C counterpart"
is lost, only the int value is retained.
> then '(define escape-key (foreign-value
> "XK_Escape" int))' is enough.
Thanks !
> (I might make the symbol uppercase just
> to emphasize it is a constant.)
Ok.
> Also 'define-foreign-variable' has
> overhead that you don't want for a constant, it isn't mutable so
> conversion should only be done once. ('foreign-value' is a wrapper
> around 'define-foreign-variable' that creates the variable, gets
its'
> value, & throws away the variable, returning only the value.)
Do I understand correctly : define-foreign-variable has overhead
in this
case since I don't need it to be mutable and foreign-value has not
that overhead ?
Not after use, no.
Thanks,
thu
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
