Re: gh_ vs. scm_ Interfaces

[Neil Jerram]

>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Cramer <address@hidden> writes:

    Chris> On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 08:45:09PM +0000, Neil Jerram
    Chris> wrote:
    >> Another consideration ISTR is the idea that the gh interface
    >> could be implemented by a completely different interpreter than
    >> Guile, and that therefore, if you wrote an extension using only
    >> the gh interface, you could plug in any interpreter that
    >> implemented the gh interface.  Realistically, I very much doubt
    >> that this will ever happen, so I think that we should drop this
    >> angle.

    Chris> Actually, MzScheme supports the gh interface.

I stand corrected - thanks!

Interestingly, this of itself raises further questions about what the
gh interface should be and what changes we should make to it.  Is
there some process for changing the gh interface in such a way that
both MzScheme and Guile are updated accordingly?

It's also interesting that there are several current emails about
usage of the gh interface.  (And I wish I knew the answers!)  Clearly
people are trying to use gh, so it's well worth thinking about how it
can be improved.

Thoughts anyone?

        Neil