Subject: [clisp-list] re: swig for ffi

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed Mar 27 14:02:02 2002

I briefly considered the use of swig, but decided against it, for
a few reasons:
1) Cparse was written in lisp, using clos and was a fairly short program.
2) Cparse already produced code for the cmucl foreign interface, so it
was easy to modify for clisp.
3) Swig had only scheme support, and was written in c.
Tom Moore gave me some really good insights as to how the program
worked, and it was easy to modify to skip over unimplemented stuff
like bitfields and attributes.
What remains for me to do is to output in the correct case, and
add in stdcall handling and some memory allocation.
Dan Stanger