Re: Again: FFI syntax

2001-05-29 Thread Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
Tue, 29 May 2001 10:37:54 +0200, Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze: > Just to restate my position: I'm against *always* wrapping the header file name > in double quotes, unless > >#include "foo/bar.h" > > implies > >#include > > if the first form is not found. It does, but having

Re: Again: FFI syntax

2001-05-29 Thread Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > On 29-May-2001, Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm against *always* wrapping the header file name > > in double quotes, unless > > > >#include "foo/bar.h" > > > > implies > > > >#include > > > > if the first form is not found.

Re: Again: FFI syntax

2001-05-29 Thread Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > "Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote: > > Now that we require the include file to have the suffix > > `.h', the declaration should be unambigious without '!'. > > Or do I overlook anything? > > To be exact, we don't require a `.h' suffix, we just don't add `.h

Re: Again: FFI syntax

2001-05-29 Thread Sven Panne
Fergus Henderson wrote: > On 29-May-2001, Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [ "" implies <> ] > > It does. > > > I'm not sure about this, although it's guaranteed > > the other way round IIRC. > > You recall incorrectly. [...] Well, at least I had a 50-50 chance! :-} OK, then let's a

Re: Again: FFI syntax

2001-05-29 Thread Fergus Henderson
On 29-May-2001, Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm against *always* wrapping the header file name > in double quotes, unless > >#include "foo/bar.h" > > implies > >#include > > if the first form is not found. It does. > I'm not sure about this, although it's guaranteed > th

Re: Again: FFI syntax

2001-05-29 Thread Fergus Henderson
On 29-May-2001, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > > > Fergus Henderson wrote: > > > > > The calling convention should not necessarily default to 'ccall'. > > > That would not be appropriate for all implementations. > > > > Granted. > >

Re: extent strings

2001-05-29 Thread Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > > But it's hard to parse without the newline, and it's going to > > be hard to specify a catch-all syntax that enables the documentation > > generator to skip all the jvm-specific junk. > > > > I think we should stuff it into a execution-platform-specific

Re: Again: FFI syntax

2001-05-29 Thread Sven Panne
"Manuel M. T. Chakravarty" wrote: > Now that we require the include file to have the suffix > `.h', the declaration should be unambigious without '!'. > Or do I overlook anything? To be exact, we don't require a `.h' suffix, we just don't add `.h' stealthily. And if I read the ISO C spec correctl

Re: Again: FFI syntax

2001-05-29 Thread Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > > I like '&', but I'm less sure about '!' - this feels like we're getting > > a little too cryptic. > > The reason for the "cryptic" '!' is avoiding ambiguity. Let's assume we > introduce a modifier which looks like a valid C identifier. What should > the

Re: Again: FFI syntax

2001-05-29 Thread Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > Fergus Henderson wrote: > > > The calling convention should not necessarily default to 'ccall'. > > That would not be appropriate for all implementations. > > Granted. > > > Instead, I think the default calling convention should be > > implementation-dep

Re: FFI Definition

2001-05-29 Thread Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
[Sorry for being absent from this discussion for a while. Teaching took its share...] Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > Simon Marlow wrote: > > > The reason for not putting them in the source is because the names of > > libraries change from system to system but their APIs don't. It's >