lucy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Schaefer <>
Subject Re: [lucy-dev] Argument processing model
Date Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:42:30 GMT
Don't be surprised if once a C API is available that other people write
dynamic bindings for that instead.  IOW I'm not sure this is such a
great idea for the goals of this project.

--- On Mon, 11/7/11, Marvin Humphrey <> wrote:

From: Marvin Humphrey <>
Subject: Re: [lucy-dev] Argument processing model
Date: Monday, November 7, 2011, 2:31 PM

On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 12:01:59PM -0800, wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2011, at 8:57 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> > Implementing a C API will be conceptually more complicated, because we will
> > have to make some decisions and leave some features out.  We can't support
> > default values from C, for example.  
> Perl’s gv_fullname function became gv_fullname3 and then gv_fullname4 when
> more params were added.  You could conceivably do the same for default
> parameters, but it might lead to API explosion, which, come to think of it,
> renders this a very bad idea.


The C API will just have to be less sophisticated because C itself is less
sophisticated.  No labeled params for C, either. :)

Lucy C API users will have to enter default argument values manually.  But we
can protect them somewhat with a policy of considering the changing of a
default value a backwards compatibility break.

Lucy is primarily targeted at high level dynamic languages.  It is not
optimized for C developers. 

Marvin Humphrey

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message