>http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~chak/haskell/ffi.ps.gz
Thanks Manuel for all your work on this document. It looks in
pretty good shape to me. This message contains my reactions to the
"gory details" from your summary. In another message I'll post some
comments on the document itself.
> "stat
Manuel,
Here are my comments on the draft FFI Report itself. It looks very
good to me, and there are just a few things to mention.
Lexical Structure
~
The lexical syntax adds 'foreign' as a keyword (reservedid). I'm not
entirely convinced this is necessary. Certainly in nhc98
Sun, 19 Aug 2001 23:14:59 +1000, Manuel M. T. Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> * I am still not convinced that we need
> `Storable.destruct'. For deallocating special purpose
> structures that need a deep traversal, shouldn't we just
> use a custom function?
Without destruct code
> Further additions to the FFI
>
> IMHO, the FFI should really be self-contained and not rely
> on other non-standardised extensions/libraries. Therefore,
> I propose some additions.
This makes me slightly uneasy because the FFI specification will
conflict with the
Malcolm writes:
> Now that we have the opportunity to define a sensible overflow
> behaviour for fixed size types, I think we should take it.
I strongly support Malcolm's proposal.
(Which is, of course, to maintain the status quo.)
I can think of 2 situations where we would not want this:
1) W
