James LewisMoss writes:
> >>>>> On 07 Nov 2000 13:55:47 -0600, Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The only thing that concerns me about this is you are introducing into
> scheme an easy way to cause a segfault. Maybe implement it this way
> in the short term because it's the easiest and lets us get onto other
> more important things quickly, but this is a bad long term solution
> imo.
I'm not sure what part of the approach you are referring to.
Do you mean simply using C pointers? We already use them
extensively in scheme. This is pretty typical for wrapping
C functions in a scripting language -- swig uses the same
method.
What do you propose as an alternative?
dave
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gnumatic.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
