From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: Why no standard foreign language interface? Date: 2000/02/13 Message-ID: <3159472938302521@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 585537082 References: <38A1C047.148D6466@raytheon.com> <3159120499145849@naggum.no> <38A1F68E.F218AB44@raytheon.com> <3159133748798780@naggum.no> <38A2A10B.50E08863@iname.com> <3159296652595081@naggum.no> <38A57F2A.F204753D@iname.com> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 950488741 4027 195.0.192.66 (14 Feb 2000 00:39:02 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879 or +1 510 435 8604; fax: +47 2210 9077; http://www.naggum.no User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Feb 2000 00:39:02 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * "Fernando D. Mato Mira" | Erik said: | "believe me, once you can figure out the braindamaged syntax of all these | stupid infix languages with a plethora of static types and other junk | enough to do the necessary steps of (1) writing wrapper code in that same | language or in C that is more friendly to a Common Lisp interface, and | (2) knowing enough to write foreign function interface code in Common | Lisp, producing output that fits one of umpteen different foreign | function interface definition "languages" for various Common Lisp | implementations is _really_ trivial." but Fernando read: | "Once you figure out how to do (1) and (2) it's trivial" no wonder we don't communicate! | If you want to trivially write a C++ parser in CL that would be even better! try a remedial reading comprehension class instead of this idiocy, will you? | Well, C++ sucks, but the CL add-on product could know enough about the | calling conventions of the particular C++ compiler, and about C++ syntax | to do a lot of stuff directly, for example by leveraging your dead Lucid | code [But don't throw loads of money at this! that's why I stated, and quite explicitly at that, that you need to write WRAPPER CODE IN THAT SAME LANGUAGE OR IN C THAT IS MORE FRIENDLY TO A COMMON LISP INTERFACE. will you _please_ get it? #:Erik