On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:26:25 -0500, Dave McGuire <[email protected]> wrote: > On Nov 23, 2009, at 4:45 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote: >> 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. > > That sucks. :-( > > You were actually the one who turned me on to TinyScheme; I've > used it in two projects so far. One of them wouldn't have been > possible with Guile because of its lack of encapsulation of runtime > data structures.
Guile smobs provide encapsulation of runtime data structures, surely? Or do I fail to grasp what you mean by this? > You can embed multiple independent TinyScheme > interpreters in the same executable. It turns out that you can do something similar in Guile using its module system -- although you only have one interpreter, you can have multiple independent environments. This actually works out to be more memory-efficient than running multiple interpreters. See this thread: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user/7375 Additionally, we can avoid the need for apps that use libgeda to run in Guile mode (as currently required) by using scm_with_guile() to enter Guile mode only when necessary: http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Initialization.html These are all ideas that have been floating around in my head for about a year now... 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
