<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Dan Colish <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dcolish@gmail.com">dcolish@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:32 AM, James Aylett <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:james-xapian@tartarus.org" target="_blank">james-xapian@tartarus.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>On 1 Dec 2011, at 13:10, Olly Betts wrote:<br>
<br>
>> Are there any (SWIG) bindings for implementations of the Scheme<br>
>> programming language?<br>
><br>
> Not really. There used to be some SWIG-based guile bindings for Xapian,<br>
> but they were never really complete and we eventually just removed them<br>
> as it had reached the point where it would be less work to start again<br>
> than to try to fix them up.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>Sven — I was partly responsible for trying to get the guile bindings usable, so I have some interest in this. Which scheme implementation would be most useful for you to have Xapian bindings for?<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
J<br>
<br></font></span></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>The best implementation to target is one supported by swig. That makes the choice pretty simple since there is only one, MzScheme/Racket. I would personally like to see a Clisp binding as well.</div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br></div><div>--Dan</div><div><br></div></font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br><div>Oops, there's also Chicken support in swig.</div>