[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[MIT-Scheme-devel] GTk+ in MIT-Scheme?
From: |
Matt Birkholz |
Subject: |
[MIT-Scheme-devel] GTk+ in MIT-Scheme? |
Date: |
Mon, 31 May 2010 14:42:43 -0700 |
Bless me, brothers, for I have Schemed. It has been 12 months since
my last confession. Since then I have been hacking mostly on LIAR's
svm1 back-end, though I DID find a minute to merge my FFI with
master...
...and pushed my commit today.
Little has changed. The merge turned up few conflicts.
Questions from last time:
> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:42:14 -0700
>
> [...]
> Questions from last time:
>
> > Do I need to sign something?
I ain't sign'n a damn thing.
> > [...] Would y'all rather see these diffs on a branch?
Make your own branch.
> > [...] Is a shockingly simple representation of C pointers worth [the
> > consing]?
Nope. "Alien" records will do.
All the old caveats still apply: no version info, little support and
no testing of compatibility with mit-scheme-c and restored bands.
I dropped the nascent support for statically linking shims onto the
machine. It seems libdl is now required. In fact, src/configure.ac
adds a number of OPTIONAL_BASES unconditionally: pruxdld (and now
pruxffi), and cmpint, cmpintmd, and comutl. Is there some reason not
to move all of these to makegen/files-core.scm or files-unix.scm or
wherever?
My Gtk and Gtk-Screen systems should get rebased and pushed "soon", so
I am looking forward to a Gtk-Screen/Canvas for Edwin in 2010. Surely! ;-)
Yours in Scheme,
-Friar Puck
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [MIT-Scheme-devel] GTk+ in MIT-Scheme?,
Matt Birkholz <=