Manuel M. T. Chakravarty
chak at cse.unsw.edu.au
Thu Nov 30 21:13:08 EST 2000
malcolm-ffi at cs.york.ac.uk wrote,
> > Simon and I noticed this morning that ForeignObj should
> > really be parameterised. The current type of newForeignObj is
> > newForeignObj :: Ptr a -> IO () -> IO ForeignObj
> > This immediately loses the type information on the Ptr!
> > Shouldn't it be
> > newForeignObj :: Ptr a -> IO () -> IO (ForeignObj a)
> I agree that once we adopt (Ptr a) in preference to Addr, ForeignObj
> may in some cases probably also be better parameterised as well.
> But *please* choose a different name (like we did with Ptr/Addr)
> for backward compatibility.
> > Or maybe we should shorten it to (FPtr a)? ("F" for "finalised".)
> I dislike cryptic abbreviations on principle. "Ptr" is clear,
> "FPtr" is not. How about "FinalisedPtr" (only 2 chars longer than
> "ForeignObj")? Or indeed, "ForeignPtr", which is the same length?
I think, I like `ForeignPtr'. Semantically, it makes sense
given that these pointers are usually used for foreign ADTs.
More information about the FFI