On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:09:16 -0500, Dave McGuire <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snip] > > It's certainly much more practical to implement > something like that if the high-level data structures are visible to > the scripting language in their native representation. I agree. Unfortunately, at the moment they are not. I've got a branch where I'm working on adding a sane, unit-tested, complete Guile API, but it's kinda stalled. Maybe I'll take another hack at it over the Christmas period. For the record, I like Scheme, and I like Guile because it's got a sane C API and a good standard library, making it much easier both to add gEDA-specific functionality at a low level, and to write non-trivial scripts at a high level. Regular readers will recall that back in 2008 I had a stab at swapping Guile for TinyScheme. I came to the conclusion that if we used TinyScheme we'd be dooming ourselves to reimplementing half of Guile, badly. Peter -- Peter Brett <[email protected]> Remote Sensing Research Group Surrey Space Centre _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
