<leoprikler>sneek: later tell a_v_p heads up "gdbus" is already claimed by the GNOME people IIRC (although potentially deprecated in favor of gio) <ane>how can I make a thunk like "(foobar)" in the C API? ***catonano_ is now known as catonano
<a_v_p>Good <time-of-day>, Guilers. <sneek>Welcome back a_v_p, you have 2 messages! <sneek>a_v_p, leoprikler says: heads up "gdbus" is already claimed by the GNOME people IIRC (although potentially deprecated in favor of gio) <a_v_p>leoprikler: I'm using "gdbus" prefix only internally in Guile-DBus for now, public (Scheme) procedures are all start with "dbus-<something>". Do you think it may lead to issues? <a_v_p>daviid: Alright, that's a good point. Although I don't think that my work and Guile-GI/GNU G-Golf fully overlap, because my library does not depend on Gnome and GTK. <daviid>a_v_p: you don't need to use gtk to access the dbus low or high level ai from gio, just gio, and you may even selectively import stricktly what you need ... i mentioned becaue writing and maintaining a good binding is difficult, dbus even more I think ... using the gio low/high levelapi is nearly 'free', if you do so using guile-gi or g-golf ... <daviid>youalso have zero maintaince cost,since the gnome team does it for us ... <daviid>a_v_p: anyway, do as you wish of course, but 'in your position' I would definitely at least try, before to further implement, either guile-gi or g-golf and see how your needs go using either the low, the high or both api's provided by the gio library - <daviid>or ac-d-bus indeed ... too many options :):) ***apteryx is now known as Guest26291
***apteryx_ is now known as apteryx
<mwette>a_v_p: ^-these examples use the auto-coded ffi from ffi/dbus.ffi. To get the associated .scm you'd have to download and run the ffi-helper. I think your approach will yield a more efficient, memory safe and portable implementation. ***sneek_ is now known as sneek
***sneek_ is now known as sneek
<manumanumanu>ArneBab: fyi, goof-loop just got :final expressions that work like in racket. Now I only want to add finalizers to :for -clauses so that I can do (in-file "path/to/file") that actually closes the file. I also added a generator-based interface so that I can do (in-indexed ...) and (in-cycle ...). That only has the same overhead as srfi-158 styled generators, which means it is pretty fast.