Modified proposal for default decls
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
qrczak at knm.org.pl
Tue Feb 27 10:56:46 EST 2001
Mon, 26 Feb 2001 07:07:55 -0800, Simon Peyton-Jones <simonpj at microsoft.com> pisze:
> Most notably, Malcolm's latest proposal introduces a new form
> of abstraction (named thing), a bundle of attributes like Gtk or Bzip.
> Another environment for the compiler to manage! Soon people will
> want to export these things and import them elsewhere!
Yes, we will! :-)
What's wrong with it?
Yet another name instead of 'foreign default':
I am specifying some details about a foreign module I want to
> * The "gtk:" part is a concession to (b). It specifies a C
> package from which this procedure comes. There is then some
> compiler-specific mechanism for mapping the name of a C package
> to the location of its header files and .o file.
This gives no advantage over the current scheme. I already can
specify header names in a compiler-specific way, and I still can't
do it compiler-independently, and the compiler still won't push it
automatically to modules which inline functions infected with C calls.
> Notice that cross-module exports of inlinings are now
> straightforward: the foreign call carries its package name with it.
How the package is defined?
> You may think this is too minimalist,
I would say: too incomplete.
> Do we really need the elaboration of Malcolm's proposal?
Yes, unless a simpler design provides what is needed.
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk * qrczak at knm.org.pl http://qrczak.ids.net.pl/
^^ SYGNATURA ZASTÊPCZA
More information about the FFI