On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Arto Bendiken arto@bendiken.net wrote:
Good morning,
I'm wondering if there is somewhere any example of embedded use of MKCL from a C/C++ program? I have not yet located one anywhere.
Attempting to proceed based on examples written for ECL is painful, as more has changed than just naming. I have not yet managed to get something as simple as [1] ported and to run after half an hour of effort.
I agree that the lack of ready-made embedding template may be frustrating. I need to write some rather sooner than later but, you see, the API for it is in a state of flux right now. So, if one writes a set of examples for current MKCL 1.1.X then that set will have to be quite seriously rewritten for upcoming MKCL 1.2.X.
(The dirty secret is that the embeddability template exists, almost verbatim but in the rough, inside file src/cmp/cmpmain.lsp)
Also, I should mention that I noticed that MKCL built from Git will install the shared library as /usr/local/lib/mkcl_1.1.10.so, without the customary lib- prefix. This means that in any case the -lmkcl linker flag will be ineffective without the manual creation of a /usr/local/lib/libmkcl.so symlink.
Indeed, internally MKCL has moved away from the -L -l feature of the (Posix) C linker. But it has been an unfortunate accident that this internal decision has spilled over to the external interface. I think I fixed that in the current Makefile.in on MKCL github master head. Proper symbolic links should now be produced to support use of -lmkcl.
Is MKCL still meant to usable embedded into C/C++ programs, or has it been evolving in other directions?
MKCL is more than ever meant to be embeddable in C/C++ programs although I have to admit I have not tried the C++ side in a long time. Deep down, MKCL's embedability has been significantly refined and improved over its origins. It's only on its outer surface that appearances may be deceiving.
BTW, a github pull request would have been most welcome on these whole matters provided that you would have clearly and explicitly stated in it that the said pull request was provided by you to MKCL under the same licensing terms as the bulk of the rest of MKCL (which means GNU LGPL). But that may be for an other day...
Cheers,
Jean-Claude