Re: Scheme->C

[David Fox <fox at hoopla dot mrl dot nyu dot edu>]

"T. Kurt Bond" <tkb@access.mountain.net> writes:

> Yes, definitely.  How difficult was the port?

Very easy.  I didn't even apply the NT patch, just the Linux patch.  I
did a little fudging here and there -- one assembler symbol needed an
underscore added, I eliminated the wrapper script and fixed up the
compiler defaults so it could work without it.  Changed some filenames
in the makefile from foo to foo.exe.  Stuff like that.

I also applied my patches to add CLOS style keywords, access to the
command line arguments and a few other things.  Since I made the
binary I've also created patches to change what Scheme->C calls
define-macro to the more conventional define-expander, to change the
standard file extension from ".sc" to ".scm".  At some point I'll make
a new binary with these features.  (Of course, they may break existing
code in minor ways.  But with them you have at least a chance of
compiling the same program with different Scheme compilers.)
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".