1 Feb
2010
1 Feb
'10
8:59 a.m.
On 01/30/2010 01:25 PM, dherring@tentpost.com wrote:
package. I think the second is a better (although marginally more complex) behavior, because it increases portability and reduces number of people who notice implementation quirks of UFFI package.
Why load cffi's uffi-compat if ECL has its own UFFI? I don't see the increase in portability.
Well, the question is whether CFFI has more subtle differences when used on different implementations than "native" UFFI implementations have. OK, I am probably wrong.