5:13:16nij-I've just watched this nice talk again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X69_42Mj-g Got a bit confused.. seems that the goal is to use C++ libs easily in CL. But why go all over the ways? Can't we just use CFFI to glue CL and C++ with C?
5:30:33drmeisterwhereiseveryone: yes - we just added the feature to start/run/shutdown clasp as a library
5:35:48drmeisterWe haven’t set up clasp to build as a library yet. That would require a bit of work with the build system.
14:51:31nij-I mean, in theory, CFFI is "enough", right? There maybe a whole lot of extra work to do to connect CL and C++ via CFFI, but I guess the amount is still uch less than implementing CLASP. In this sense, CLASP must have achieved other things that my naive approach would not. What are those things?
15:32:31jackdanielnij-: defining common lisp class as c++ class and using c++ class as lisp class, as pointed out above
15:32:57jackdanielinvoking c++ functions that are overloaded is another I guess
15:41:11nij-> class -- I see. Is it because both CL and C++ are compiled into LLVM, the classes can be made essentially the same? In my naive "approach", we would have to transform CL class to C data and then to C++ class, which makes it slower and seamful?
15:43:02jackdanielI don't know what does it mean to transform cl class to c data
15:43:26jackdanielto be blunt, I think that you are out of your depth with this proposal