Koen Claessen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > Manuel M. T. Chakravarty wrote: > > | I don't think that it makes much sense coding on the > | plain FFI unless there are reasons for avoiding an > | extra tool or the binding is very small. > > Just my $0.02: > > I have used the plain FFI for larger projects. The initial > reason I did this because my version of H/Direct stopped > working after I switched to a newer GHC, and I did not feel > like trying to fix it (again), or install a new tool. So, I > was forced to use the plain FFI. > > I found it delightfully simple! [..] > One more note I like to make: Using H/Direct (and no doubt > any of the other tools as well), I find that one ends up > writing a wrapper module anyway, which gives the library in > question a more Haskell-like interface (types, function > names, order of arguments, extra polymorphism wrappers, > runST-like tricks, etc.) The amount of work involved > removing the extra (automatic) layer is about the same as > the amount of work trying to make the interface compatible
I agree completely - except that in C->Haskell (and also hsc2hs) you do *not* have to write that extra layer. Or to be precise, you do it in one go. This was one of the main design goals in C->Haskell. You may know that when I started on Gtk+HS, I used the same approach as you (for similar reasons as you do). After many lines of code, I found that it works nice that way, but there are a couple of things which when automated would save quite same work. So, I automated just these piece, the rest is still just verbatim Haskell code doing the marshalling. Cheers, Manuel _______________________________________________ Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
