FFI proposal: allow some control over the scope of C headerfiles
Manuel M T Chakravarty
chak at cse.unsw.edu.au
Sat Apr 29 19:19:43 EDT 2006
> On 25 April 2006 09:51, John Meacham wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 09:40:58AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> >> Admittedly I haven't tried this route (not including *any* external
> >> headers at all when compiling .hc files). It might be possible, but
> >> you lose the safety net of compiler-checked calls.
> > yeah, perhaps a hybrid approach of some sort, when building the
> > package, use the system headers, but then include generated
> > prototypes inside the package-file and don't propagate #includes once
> > the package is built.
> > or just an intitial conformance check against the system headers
> > somehow (?), but then only use your own generated ones when actually
> > compiling haskell code. It would be nice to never need to include
> > external headers in .hc files.
> Hmm, the more I think about it, the more I like this idea. It means we
> could essentially forget about the public/private header file stuff, we
> don't need the extra pragmas, and there would be no restrictions on
> inlining of foreign calls.
That'd be great!
More information about the Haskell-prime