Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > Personally I'd rather have a single well-designed convenient foreign > language interface as a standard part of the language, rather than > having a minimalistic foreign language interface in the language > standard and having convenience provided by a separate tool > (or by several competing separate tools). But I understand why > you might differ on that point. I doubt that you want to support the functionality of H/Direct or C->HS in the standard part of the language, which means that without a tool you have to settle for less anyway. Or in other words, you will use a tool anyway for getting a really convenient interface. If so, why not move as much of the work to the tool as possible? Cheers, Manuel _______________________________________________ FFI mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
- Re: extended foreign decls Tyson Dowd
- Re: extended foreign decls Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
- Re: extended foreign decls Fergus Henderson
- Re: extended foreign decls Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: extended foreign decls Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
- Re: extended foreign decls Fergus Henderson
- Re: extended foreign decls malcolm-ffi
- Re: extended foreign decls Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: extended foreign decls Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
- Re: extended foreign decls Fergus Henderson
- Re: extended foreign decls Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
- Re: extended foreign decls Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
- Re: extended foreign decls Tyson Dowd
- Re: extended foreign decls Tyson Dowd
- Re: extended foreign decls Fergus Henderson
- Re: extended foreign decls Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
- Re: extended foreign decls Fergus Henderson
- RE: extended foreign decls Alastair Reid
- Re: extended foreign decls Fergus Henderson
- Re: extended foreign decls Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
- RE: extended foreign decls malcolm-ffi