On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 11:10:13AM +0100, Jos? Bollo wrote:
> What I have in mind is that there is no need for a specific IDL: the
> language itself is the IDL and the code generator.
>
> I can add that SCHEME interpreters are small piece of code (that you
> don't have to change, pick it and
> - IDL from MACH/HURD (/darwin), no references, blur
The Mach Interface Generator (mig) should be documented via a man page and in
the PostScript reference documentation that's part of the Mach distribution.
-- Chris
On Wed, 9 Mar 2022 14:40:44 +
"Koning, Paul" wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 2022, at 5:18 AM, jo...@nonadev.net wrote:
> >
> > Hello tech-kern,
> >
> > I'm discorvering the article about language-neutral-interfaces for
> > system calls.
> >
> >
>> I'm discorvering the article about language-neutral-interfaces for
>> system calls.
>> [...]
>> IMHO scheme language is well suited to answer the issue.
> As for Scheme, I thought that's a programming language, and a rather
> exotic one at that.
Not all that exotic. AIUI it's just a Lisp
> On Mar 9, 2022, at 5:18 AM, jo...@nonadev.net wrote:
>
> Hello tech-kern,
>
> I'm discorvering the article about language-neutral-interfaces for system
> calls.
>
>
Hello tech-kern,
I'm discorvering the article about language-neutral-interfaces for
system calls.
http://wiki.netbsd.org/projects/project/language-neutral-interfaces/
That is a very interesting topic.
IMHO scheme language is well suited to answer the issue.
Are you interested in more
