On 16 December 2011 11:02, Stefan Marr <smalltalk@stefan-marr.de> wrote:
On 16 Dec 2011, at 10:49, Igor Stasenko wrote:
oh please. that's even less obvious usage :) there's a lot of different stuff in C syntax which you can play with. But it doesn't means that you need to routinely support everything in FFI callout specs.
as i said, the function signature syntax are close to C syntax, but not strictly C.
Igor, what is your goal with that? Have something working, or have something usable?
If your goal is to have something usable, then your direct competitor is LuaJIT2's FFI http://luajit.org/ext_ffi.html and you should show similar ambitions. (Note specifically the 'cut&past part') Otherwise, it will always remain just a nice try, an experiment that never got finished/productized.
My understanding is that your boss got other plans for Pharo...
well, there are things which i would like to have, like integrating with Cog (so a call to generated native code will be performed directly , instead via primitive), non-blocking and callbacks. This is much more important to have than subtleties, how to define a function which takes no arguments by using '()' or '(void)'.. Kind of 'triangle has three corners' vs 'triangle has three edges' discussion. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.