Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:31:30PM +1100, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote: > > Ross Paterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > > > (That is the Latin-1 subset, so calling them ASCII seems a misnomer.) > > > > Yes, but we can't call it Latin-1 either, because that > > implies a locale (there is also Latin-2 etc). > > CByteString?
That would be CBString given the current naming scheme. I don't think that this helps much, as one might argue that in CString, we also use bytes on the C side. ASCII may not be entirely correct, but it conveys the right intuition. > Do you intend to wait until an implementation of this is committed > to CVS before finalizing the spec? (I hope so.) We already have a reference implementation (by John Meacham), which is available online. I am not sure whether having it in CVS is going to add much. But we can do this in two steps, (1) another RC announcement at [EMAIL PROTECTED] (the last was to the FFI list only). (2) Then, commit after that. > Incidentally, the spec says CWChar but the libraries say CWchar. > It seems they always disagreed. (If the libs change, maybe CPtrdiff > and CFpos should be CPtrDiff and CFPos too.) I think, the spec should change. The naming scheme is that we capitalise letters in the Haskell identifier after an underscore in the C identifier; thus, ptrdiff_t -> CPtrdiff sig_atomic_t -> CSigAtomic I will change the spec. Cheers, Manuel _______________________________________________ FFI mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
