Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> skribis: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> skribis: >> >>> At some point, it might make sense to create a more static FFI that >>> works more like a C compiler does, splitting the job into compile-time >>> and run-time phases. This static FFI would be strictly less powerful >>> than the dynamic FFI, in a similar sense to how syntactic record APIs >>> are less powerful than procedural ones. However, the static FFI would >>> be sufficient in most cases, and would have some advantages. >> >> In my mind the “static FFI” is the C API, and the dynamic FFI is >> (system foreign). >> >> To me, the main advantage of the latter is its simplicity of use and >> deployment. > > Okay, but here I'm using "Static FFI" to mean something very different > than the C API: I'm talking about a pure scheme-based API that would be > quite similar to the API our current dynamic FFI, except that a lot of > the work would be done at compilation time (probably during macro > expansion).
Ah, OK, sorry for the confusion! Ludo’.
