On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 11:07:27AM +0100, Malcolm Wallace wrote:
> > and if we are adding things to the FFI spec, how about the empty data
> > declaration? it is painfully simple to implement and would make FFI code
> > a lot cleaner as it tends to depend heavily on placeholder types..
>
> Hugs and ghc already have it (AFAIK). I recently added it to nhc98.
> Do you think it should become a formal part of the FFI standard? Or
> is it best left as another "common" extension of Haskell'98 that just
> happens to be implemented everywhere?
yeah, I would like to see the extension in the FFI, because it will
probably never make it in anywhere else and it makes FFI code so much
cleaner/more readable. I'd almost like to see it considered a 'misprint'
in the haskell report and fixed there, but I'd settle for the FFI.
Since every compiler supports it, we should put it in, rather then
encourage everyone to write technically 'non-portable' code, by
providing the perfect use for it in the FFI but not the extension
itself.
John
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Meacham - California Institute of Technology, Alum. - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
FFI mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
