Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?

[Sam Tregar]

On Fri, 4 May 2001, Bobby D. Bryant wrote:

> I did a draft set of Guile->Ada bindings back during my winter break (which
> I continue to hack on at a slower pace), and I've found that the gh_ stuff
> provides most of the basic Scheme functionality, and the limited scope of
> gh_ made it very easy to get the necessary traction for getting something
> useful working in a finite amount of time.

Is there anywhere I can take a look at what you've produced?  It could be
quite helpful.

> Let's don't pretend I'm an expert, but FWIW I think you'll find that you can
> use gh_ for the core of your interface, and then add in some additional scm_
> stuff if you want to support more functionality.

That sounds like a good approach.  My only fear about that was the
ominously empty section of the in-progress docs titled something like
"Combining gh_ and scm_ calls".  It made me think maybe that wasn't such
a good idea.

-sam