Re: [Chicken-users] future of chicken?

[Peter Keller]

On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 10:10:22AM +0200, felix wrote:
> Sounds all very good. But I recommend not to implement the stuff on too
> low a level. It would be nice to have easy-to-use access to these
> libraries (perhaps with optional low-level routines for the truly
> adventurous)

I've thought about this, and my conclusion is to do as direct a C API
translation to scheme as I possibly can for any library I port, and then
maybe write an abstraction on the top for easy-access. This way, people
can gain the use of the library quickly, but those already experienced in
the library can use the low-level API as well without being hindered by
my incorrect (with respect to what they want to do) abstraction choices.

In GMP, I actually didn't implement the low-level API, which I'm sure
the hardcore users of GMP would scream for. It was mostly because I still
barely understand the memory usage patters of foreign allocated objects
in chicken (like when and how to use set-finalizer!(or whatever it was
called)).  When I understand them much better, I'll go back and implement
the hard core low level API which trades pointers around everywhere. But
honestly, the API I did implement is most likely what anyone idly using the 
library for some task is going to use, so it is a big win.

-pete