> On Monday 02 June 2003 2:32 pm, Simon Marlow wrote: > > > Ok. But I still don't understand why the whole discussion > isn't moot. > > I can't see how to acquire a value of type T that isn't bottom. > > Whether you can acquire values of this type or not, we need > to give it a semantics. > > We know that T must contain bottom.
Not necessarily - GHC's primitive types don't contain bottom. But I'm probably just being awkward, since I really don't understand what it is you're trying to do here. > > Could you give an example? > > No , I probably can't come up with an example as things stand > at the moment. > But who knows what changes we might make in the future and > when we do, we're > bound to do better if our semantics relfects reality instead > of relying on a trick. I'd be happy for semantics to reflect reality - but what *is* the reality that you're trying to model? And what do you mean by a trick? As far as I can tell, you want a type T that represents a foreign object. What is the representation of this foreign object? How is it marshalled to and from the foreign language? I think an example would really help. Invent some syntax and extra features if you need to! Cheers, Simon _______________________________________________ FFI mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi