On Wed, Nov 10, 1999 at 08:47:59AM -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
> Rob Browning wrote:
> > So, after thinking about all these bits, we decided that we needed to pick
> > just one language as the embedded one. In the end we went with Guile. To
> > be fair, that's probably in large part my fault. I did a lot of the work
> > with both the perl and guile stuff, and I pushed in the guile direction
> > once I had played with both, but no one else seemed to mind too much.
>
> That is understandable, and it sounds like a reasonable decision was made.
>
> However, I wonder----could we mitigate the problems you describe by allowing
> users who don't want it to turn off the option at compile time, and by being
> careful to control what access is given to the scripting language?
>
> Baring that, if a scripting language is not a first-class-citizen, what can
> one expect *not* to be able to do in that scripting language?
>
Directly access program internals. This should be deprecated anyway, since
internals can change.
This really isn't much different from adding language support on top of
any other program. It's just that in most cases the scripting language is
calling C functions. Here it is calling scheme (and possibly some C functions
directly).
--
James (Jay) Treacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
