Pandering to Lisp

[Ian Phillips]

Well, symbols could map to D-Bus dicts, that way you can still support
arbitrary properties (Lisp has these, don't know about Skill).

I'm not sure what the best approach would be for lists though.

Ian.


> The main difference in the Wombeyan design is that it panders 
> extensively to SKILL (Lisp derivative) -- the intent being to integrate 
> with the Cadence products.  Notably, it omits a distinct boolean type, 
> unsigned types, 64-bit ints, and dicts.  On the flip side, it includes a 
> distinct symbol type as well as (heterogeneous) lists.
> 
> None of these is a show-stopper by any means.  However, I'd like to hear 
> what others might suggest for mapping symbols and lists to D-Bus.  My 
> immediate reaction is to use the custom type, but I don't want to 
> (ab)use it if there's a better solution.
> 
> Mapping to booleans is, sadly, problematic.  While the 't symbol is 
> obviously equivalent to true, nil is both false and the empty list.  In 
> practice, this hasn't been an issue, even in Java.
> 
> Anyway, looking forward to seeing how D-Bus plays out.
-- 
#ifndef  __COMMON_SENSE__ | Ian Phillips
#include <std_disclaimer> | TIBCO Software Inc.
#endif                    | www.tibco.com