[fluxus] fluxus plans

[Dave Griffiths]

> have you considered using swig to generate bindings?

good question. I think the main reason is that using automatic bindings
you lose some control over the finer points of the binding, such as
function naming convention, argument ordering and so on. what makes sense
for C++ doesn't always make sense in scheme. I think in most cases you get
around this by writing another interface layer - which would mean a
similar amount of work to the binding layer anyway.

where it really works well is if you need to support multiple scripting
languages, but for fluxus a lot of the interface is specifically designed
to be schemish, so it would appear strange in another scripting language
(especially non-functional ones).

I was originally going to abstract the binding to allow us to swap scheme
interpreters easily, (which we could still do) but after a while I came to
the conclusion this would be over-engineering something which would be
unlikely to be worthwhile.

cheers,

dave