On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Just wanted to say that I think that we (or at least I) at some point in > > time had the goal to replace structs with pure GOOPS data structures. In > > the context of FFI, this would allow you to be more flexible than what > > structs allow, ultimately being able to access arbitrary C structs and > C++ > > structs/classes directly from Scheme. I find that a proper MOP (which > > maybe still is not fully developed) is a nicer way to handle non-standard > > access than the strange character strings in struct vtables... > > The struct layout strings are a bit clunky, indeed. ;-) I like the > flexibility that GOOPS provide, especially when it comes to extending > things like ‘equal?’, ‘write’, and so on. > > I think it’s better if GOOPS is not a requirement for basic interfaces > like this SMOB replacement, though. One of the concerns is performance. > For instance, in 2.0, start-up time with GOOPS is on the order of 3 > times higher than without it > Right, but it's probably possible to re-organize things such that it's not necessary to load all of GOOPS to use basic interfaces, even if everything is based on a common non-struct data type... Just meant as input---do what you think is best!
