Hello,
> > I'll try to test it here as well but i'll have to convert it to an
> > equivalent C code first.
>
> Out of interest, why is that? (It's easy enough to call Scheme-defined
> code from C, isn't it?)
Yes! I think i my mind is stuck in the world of C. :(
> That sounds more complex and magic than it needs to be, to me - where by
> "complex" I mean your infrastructure code using undefine, and by "magic"
> I mean that it requires plugin authors to follow a non-code-enforced
> convention about the names of the variables.
I know my design sucks and that is why i am so desperate to hear
new ideas. Let's hear yours:
> Why not use a registration
> API instead? In other words, instead of this:
>
> (define (do-plugin-thing-1 ...) ...)
> (define (do-plugin-thing-2 ...) ...)
> ...
>
> do this:
>
> (let ()
> (define (do-plugin-thing-1 ...) ...)
> (define (do-plugin-thing-2 ...) ...)
> ...
> (register-plugin do-plugin-thing-1
> do-plugin-thing-2
> ...))
>
> This way there is no magic, and the visibility of the plugin bindings is
> under the control of the plugin author. Also, this way you could stay
> pure-R5RS if you like, as you don't really need any features of the
> module system.
Sounds pretty cool. I'll give it a try. Thanks a lot.
Regards,
Zeeshan Ali
_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
