> I will not add for the moment that predefined types value holders? We would > need to add one for each type we support to be consistent, and document it, > and add tests. > And btw? you do have a generic holder? is just that you need to refine it to > what you want :)
Couldn't we use FFIInt32? To me it would make sense to use the class to refer to the type, and an instance of it for a value holder in memory (this is not asking for a change, only reporting it looks strange). > My advise is that you go with what you need, we can consider add predefined > value holders later. Yep, I am sticking to the basic features as much as possible anyway. Cheers, Thibault
