Re: Best way to interface Java?

[Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>]

"Nic Ferrier" <nferrier@tapsellferrier.co.uk> writes:

> Do you consider that more "schemey" than using the environment test?

I don't know about "schemey" but I don't consider environment tests
to be in the spirit of Kawa.  I recommend modules that can be pre-compiled;
each module has a fixed set of names.  Client modules check the names
exported by moudles they use at *compile time*.  Environment tests
don't work well in such a framwork.  (While Kawa doesn't have really usable
compile-time type-checking, I'm a big believer in it, at least as an
option.  What Kawa does have is compile-time name-resolution, and that
is even more important than type-checking.  You can't do type-checking
without name-resolution.  Run-time environment tests should generally
be avoided.)

> One of the things I was trying to do was offer a bit of type
> protection (or at least argument number protection) because the procs
> used each have different number of arguments (and they are of
> different types).

My proposal using (object ...) does have the type protection
*and* is extensible *and* it fits well with Java.  Whether it is
"schemey" is a matter for debate though ...
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com   http://www.bothner.com/~per/