Glimmer Labs wrote:
> However, even if we were to build this in an
> extension, from looking at re and ftx, it seems like we'd still need
> mk_foreign_func'ed functions, at least one of which would still need
> to use scheme_call.  Do you know of another way to assign arguments to
> and evaluate a closure passed to a foreign function from tinyscheme?

Have you also looked at init_procedures() and marshall_proc_db_call() in the 
scheme_wrapper.c file? You will find other examples of defining Scheme 
routines that will call C when invoked and which require parameters.

That is about all I can suggest for the moment without knowing the specifics 
of the situtation where you feel you have to use scheme_call.

> Do you know if Jonathan Shapiro/Dimitrios Souflis are still actively
> maintaining tinyscheme?

AFAIK, they are still maintaining TinyScheme although I don't know how 
actively. Jonathan had also talked of doing a rewrite of TinyScheme but I 
haven't heard anything further on that issue.


Kevin.           |"What are we going to do today, Borg?"
Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172      |"Same thing we always do, Pinkutus:
                                 |  Try to assimilate the world!"
#include <disclaimer/favourite> |              -Pinkutus & the Borg
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to