Re: Dynamic FFI vs Static FFI (was Re: About Guile crypto support)

[Ludovic Courtès]

Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:

> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:
>>
>>> At some point, it might make sense to create a more static FFI that
>>> works more like a C compiler does, splitting the job into compile-time
>>> and run-time phases.  This static FFI would be strictly less powerful
>>> than the dynamic FFI, in a similar sense to how syntactic record APIs
>>> are less powerful than procedural ones.  However, the static FFI would
>>> be sufficient in most cases, and would have some advantages.
>>
>> In my mind the “static FFI” is the C API, and the dynamic FFI is
>> (system foreign).
>>
>> To me, the main advantage of the latter is its simplicity of use and
>> deployment.
>
> Okay, but here I'm using "Static FFI" to mean something very different
> than the C API: I'm talking about a pure scheme-based API that would be
> quite similar to the API our current dynamic FFI, except that a lot of
> the work would be done at compilation time (probably during macro
> expansion).

Ah, OK, sorry for the confusion!

Ludo’.