Before I shut up, I'd really like to stress the importance of such a
standard one more time. While having a standardized FFI is certainly
helpful, whatever is called through it is not standardized and
therefore doesn't really help in terms of portability.
The standard API I envisage is mainly a specification without
requiring a reference implementation. Without such a specification,
people will invariably create a terrible, non-portable mess when they
start to interface to their favorite external GUI library in their
favorite R6RS implementations. No non-textual end-user application
written in X scheme will ever be portable with any reasonable amount
of work to Y scheme. With an optional GUI standard library, it will
invariably be implemented in one R6RS implementation or another on
the basis of whatever external library the implementor likes, be it
built-in by the language implementor or through an FFI by someone
else. (There is currently no platform wars or desires for runtime
application barriers in the Scheme community, so it seems fair to
assume that people would strife for conformity.)
The more complete the specification of a Scheme GUI and System
library, the more portable and cross-platform the code will be.
Regards,
Erich
> I think I would rather see the time spent on standardizing on a
> method of accessing existing GUI (and other) libraries.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/attachments/20070604/79f30f73/attachment.htm
Received on Mon Jun 04 2007 - 08:48:46 UTC