🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <NJ104.94Nov9121749@hilsa.amtp.cam.ac.uk>
nj104@amtp.cam.ac.uk (Neil Jerram) writes:

   In article <39odfp$nvq@love.loyola.edu> bkuhn@justice.loyola.edu
   (Bradley M. Kuhn) writes:

      In article <398tet$9lp@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU>, Tom Christiansen
      <tchrist@mox.perl.com> wrote:

      > A significant challenge will be for the
      >FSF to implement this great extension language and then provide a generic
      >API so that people building things don't HAVE to use it,...

      This is a good point.  However, how would this work?  It sounds
      as if Tom is propsing that the generic API go through C (or some
      lower level like that) rather then through the Scheme-like CL
      that GNU is proposing people write translators for to use their
      favorite extension langauge.

   Actually Tom's idea (if I understand it correctly now(!)) is far
   more fundamental than this and potentially far more exciting as
   well.

   He thinks that any extension language interpreters should run sort
   of as daemon processes separate from the main application process.
   The `source' application notifies the interpreter by IPC of the
   primitive functions that it provides.

I don't think that there is any important conflict between an same
address space approach (i.e. the API) and an IPC approach. You ought
to be able to choose.

-Mark
-- 
Mark Friedman
NASA-Ames Research Center
MS 269-2
Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000

vmail: (415) 604-0573
email: bobo@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov