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.
http://www.ve3syb.ca/ |"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