In article <··················@pdx800.intel.com>
····@pdx800.intel.com (Mike Haertel) writes:
> I would actually argue that, as far as possible, all programs should
> be written to be able to run without human supervision--after all,
This is easy. Just use a delivery system for the production code,
but use the friendly enviroment for development. I tend to include
all kinds of stuff in my code when developing, and I just take it
out when I'm finished.
I've yet to use a language that doesn't support this. If you can't
do it in Lisp, could it be that your implentation doesn't support it?
I may not be an expert on Lisp, but I can't see how an FFI for Lisp
is fundamentally different than an FFI for a language like Actor.
Both use a GC and data types that don't map into simple C objects.
Despite this, it's possible to declare and call a function in a
library.
-- Cyber Surfing on CIX --
From: Jeff Dalton
Subject: Re: The "Unix World" mentality?
Date:
Message-ID: <38751@castle.ed.ac.uk>
In article <···········@cix.compulink.co.uk> ············@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
-I may not be an expert on Lisp, but I can't see how an FFI for Lisp
-is fundamentally different than an FFI for a language like Actor.
-Both use a GC and data types that don't map into simple C objects.
-Despite this, it's possible to declare and call a function in a
-library.
Sure, and most Lisp implementations let you do this too. It's
just that they don't all do it the same way.