Stefan Edwards scripsit:

> I would think that the standard would define something akin to
> Bordeaux threads and support some minimal-level of threading across
> a wide variety of systems, whilst the language itself would allow
> for users to select the best possible threading for themselves via
> SRFI-0/7. It could be as simple as falling back to continuation based
> threads should the OS/VM target not support threading natively.

Threads, unlike FFI, will be part of R7RS-large.  See
http://trac.sacrideo.us/wg/wiki/ThreadsCowan for my current proposal,
which closely tracks SRFI 18.  It deliberately says nothing about whether
the threads are continuation-based, library-based, kernel-based, or even
full processes.

> A decent FFI would allow the user to work around this. I don't think
> having a standard FFI means assuming that there is no difference in
> ABI, system calls, &c., but it would mean that if I need to interact
> with C on system X, I don't have different syntax from system Y, even
> though the way I interact with system X is *completely* different from
> system Y (32 vs 64 bit, ropes vs flat strings, ad infinitum).

+1

--
I marvel at the creature: so secret and         John Cowan
so sly as he is, to come sporting in the pool   cowan@ccil.org
before our very window.  Does he think that     http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Men sleep without watch all night?

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports