Glimmer Labs wrote: > However, even if we were to build this in an > extension, from looking at re and ftx, it seems like we'd still need > mk_foreign_func'ed functions, at least one of which would still need > to use scheme_call. Do you know of another way to assign arguments to > and evaluate a closure passed to a foreign function from tinyscheme? Have you also looked at init_procedures() and marshall_proc_db_call() in the scheme_wrapper.c file? You will find other examples of defining Scheme routines that will call C when invoked and which require parameters. That is about all I can suggest for the moment without knowing the specifics of the situtation where you feel you have to use scheme_call. > Do you know if Jonathan Shapiro/Dimitrios Souflis are still actively > maintaining tinyscheme? AFAIK, they are still maintaining TinyScheme although I don't know how actively. Jonathan had also talked of doing a rewrite of TinyScheme but I haven't heard anything further on that issue. -- Cheers! Kevin. http://www.ve3syb.ca/ |"What are we going to do today, Borg?" Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172 |"Same thing we always do, Pinkutus: | Try to assimilate the world!" #include <disclaimer/favourite> | -Pinkutus & the Borg _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
