Benjamin Smith wrote:
>On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 08:39:28PM +0400, Vadim wrote:
>
>
>>Adam Kennedy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>One alternative for the bridging stuff would be to look at using
>>>something like Language::LISP.
>>>
>>>
>>...
>>
>>
>>
>>>That tends to be a more common area for bridges to languages.
>>>
>>>
>>Although there are different approaches within Language:: namespace
>>("bridge" connections like Language::Haskell, etc, and also "toy"
>>implementations like Language::Basic) it is indeed common area for
>>bridges to languages.
>>
>>So, I'll stick with Language::Lisp name.
>>
>>
>
>If your module only connects to one LISP implementation, I'd urge you to
>make sure you put that name in the namespace, eg Language::Lisp::CMUCL.
>
>
>
no, it uses CFFI, so this should cover every implementation supporting that.
I'm developing using CLISP, but not relying on its internals.
Indeed, implementation-dependant things should be in their own packages.
Vadim.
