[ERR5RS] FFI concern from a lowly user

[Leonardo Valeri Manera]

On 02/02/2008, David Rush <kumoyuki at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2008 2:58 PM, Leonardo Valeri Manera <l.valerimanera at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I mean, don't get me wrong, I adore scheme, but I often find myself
> > having to use other laguages or bind myself to a particular
> > implementation not because of implementation-specific syntax
> > extensions or the like, but because of the lack of a portable FFI
> > structure.
> >
>
> Unfortunately there is (to my mind at least) one core problem which muddies
> the waters of how a universal FFI for Scheme implementations - the fact that
> there is not an obvious 'right' way to implement
> CALL-WITH-CURRENT-CONTINUATION, which has deep implications for the way that
> the stack gets used.

I don't know enough about the low-level stuff to discuss that, so all
I'll say is, I'm sorry to hear that.

The lack of such an ability for scheme is, I think, a major problem...

On a tenuously-related note, are there plans to search for files
called in an (import) andor (load) statement in a path provided by a
standard env variable - eg. SCHEME_LIBRARY_PATH - or will we have to
search ourselves through the filesystem for libraries not provided by
the implementation?