Re: goops C interface

[Michael Livshin]

Eric Moore <address@hidden> writes:

> 1) do people prefer some kind of giant varargs style function that
>    defines a class, or one that takes a struct that defines it?

no idea.  the varargs variant can probably be implemented in terms of
the struct variant.

the struct variant has the (theoretically) nice property that the
struct you use to describe a class is an object on it's own right and
can be manipulated in other ways.  this property does not seem very
useful, though.

the varargs variant has the nice property of being less verbose.

if C had keyword arguments, the choice would be obvious...

> 2) should the API deal in SCM values (since a goops object can by
>    default hold any value) or C values (like the fdi.c and snarfing
>    system does)

both, methinks.  if you implement data structures specifically for use 
with Guile, you want SCM's.  if you want Guile to have direct access
to your data, you want C types.  if I misunderstand the question, you
want to ignore me. ;)

-- 
When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.
                -- Steve Hoflich on comp.lang.c++