Re: Functional Developer UNICODE support + source?

• To: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
• Subject: Re: Functional Developer UNICODE support + source?
• From: "Mark Jordan" <Mark_Jordan@nospam.btinternet.com>
• Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 18:00:01 -0400 (EDT)
• Organization: BT Internet
• References: <200107251527.LAA14194@life.ai.mit.edu> <4u201otrj.fsf@beta.franz.com> <3B5FAFA4.7501CDB5@pobox.com>
• Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.dylan:13521

"Eric Gouriou" <eric_gouriou@pobox.com> wrote in message 3B5FAFA4.7501CDB5@pobox.com">news:3B5FAFA4.7501CDB5@pobox.com...
>  And have you ever heard of two CL / Dylan / Scheme / ... vendors
> linking programs together ? :-(
>
>  The lack of a common C++ name-mangling scheme is indeed
> a blessing until a common ABI emerges. And the absence of an early
> ABI can also be seen as a blessing, since it allowed some alternative
> implementation techniques to be developped over the years before the
> standardisation effort started.
>
>  Example:
>  "zero-cost" exception handling schemes are only now becoming the norm,
> and those would have been hindered by earlier ABI standards.
> (Now whether they are a blessing or a curse is another debate :-). )

Eric,
I'm not sure I agree. Standards evolve just as compiler implementation
techniques evolve. How hard would it be to put an ABI version number into
an object file for use by a linker/loader?  Or is the issue more complicated
than this?

Cheers,
Mark.

• Re: Functional Developer UNICODE support + source?
• From: Duane Rettig <duane@franz.com>
• Re: Functional Developer UNICODE support + source?
• From: Eric Gouriou <eric_gouriou@pobox.com>

• Prev: Re: Functional Developer UNICODE support + source?
• Next: Re: Multiple dispatch / multimethods??
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread