felix winkelmann wrote:
On 2/7/07, Shawn Rutledge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/6/07, felix winkelmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/6/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Joerg. Currently I am developing with bigloo and I am
> > looking for a good GUI library to use with it. As I have used Gtk+
> > before (in OCaml and C), I am just experimenting how would be a
bigloo
> > interface to gtk. But I do not think I will use bigloo for all of my
> > Scheme developments. The next project could be in Chicken, for
> > instance. So common libraries to many scheme implementations are
> > valuable to me and I think the Scheme community should put
efforts to
> > develop them, when possible.
> >
>
> For that the Scheme community would first need a common FFI...
Why? Wouldn't the SRFI just cover the API which a user of the GUI
library can expect to have, rather than implementation strategy for
every Scheme?
Hm. Yes, you are probably right there. I mostly think in terms of
implementation,
which I consider (currently) more important.
And without concrete implementation on several Schemes, aren't SRFIs
typically rejected / withdrawn as 1 guy's pet project? This is where
lack of a standard C FFI is really crippling. It greatly raises the bar
for what a proof of concept requires.
Also, what's the scope of a SRFI? I'm doubting that cross-platform GUI
widget toolkits are within scope. It's not a simple facility, it's a
big piece of software. You could try instead for a "standard window"
SRFI, but seeing how it's so OS-specific, I seriously doubt you'll get
anyone to SRFI that.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
