Re: Mike and Ward, what next?

In article <1119282313.309519.175200@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 "Erik" <groups@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> 
> Basically, you can access the Objective-C runtime using a small handful
> of function calls. 

Yes, used that to see if one could access it from (Carbon)MacForth,
but never finished a general useful interface. Mops has one, though.

> I'm assuming that you can access the ObjC frameworks/cl***** from
> there.

Using only the ObjC frameworks/cl***** could give you a very limited
experience of your Mac.

As an experiment you could use the Mops ObjC runtime interface to see
if you can access from within the ObjC runtime arbitrary functions from, 
say, the QuickTime, OpenGL, Core Audio, or System frameworks (don't use
the direct framework call mechanism in Mops).
AFAIK these frameworks are not ObjC, at least their API's are C, but that
shouldn't matter. Cocoa applications im****t and call these functions the
same way a C app in Carbon would do (in so far I understood the source
codes :)

> If that's correct, it would be easier to build an Objective-C bridge
> than go through the whole list of Carbon API calls.

There's no need to implement the whole list, a Forth like MacForth
doesn't anyway. It allows you to pick what you need from the Carbon
lib/framework or any of the underlying frameworks. Currently MF
accesses nearly all the frameworks (including Cocoa) in OS X via two
'bridges': a CFM calling sequence for Carbon and a MachO calling sequence
for the rest, easy.
A possible MF on the IntelMac would be MachO, using the one bridge,
sure, more easy.