Again: FFI syntax

[Sven Panne]

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-dependent.

Hmmm, this would make the semantics of the sources compiler-/interpreter-
dependent, which is never a good thing. So let's simply make callconv
mandatory, "ccall" isn't that long after all.

> Also, implementations should be allowed to provide calling conventions
> not on that list.

IIRC the intention for enumerating some calling conventions here is to
make future implementations agree on the name of callconv when they
implement e.g. a C++ or Java FFI, not to rule out other possibilities.
But this should be made clear from the FFI spec.

Cheers,
   Sven
-- 
Sven Panne    Fon: +49/89/99567000    Fax: +49/89/99567461
BetaResearch GmbH,    Betastr. 1,    D-85774 Unterfoehring
mailto:Sven_Panne at BetaResearch.de    http://www.betaresearch.de