Sven Panne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > Manuel wrote: > > [...] > > * I want to get v1.0 of the spec fixed. We are really only > > in bug fix mode for quite a while and only the finalizer > > problems held us back from finishing the spec. > > That's OK and I understand your motivation. Let's finish v1.0 first. > > > * I am sure there are plenty more useful FFI-related > > libraries. However, the initial plan was to define basic > > functionality on top of which more elaborate schemes can > > be implemented. We need to draw the line somewhere. [...] > > But I strongly disagree here: The initial plan was to make a very small, > but sufficient addition to the language (=> foreign import/export), which > can be implemented easily on existing systems. In this respect, we have > reached our goal quite elegantly IMHO. > > The related libraries are a totally different beast: Minimality is *not* > a design goal here.
Ok. I agree that my statement here was too simplistic. Our design principle with respect to the libraries is certainly harder to state. > In a nutshell: Let's include as many useful "patterns" in the next FFI spec > versions as possible! Nevertheless, I am pretty sure the idea wasn't to include as many libraries as possible. We wanted a "reasonable" set to cover the standard idioms. The question is were to draw the line between the FFI spec and a general set of generally available libraries. I completely agree that we should have large a pool of libraries running on all systems as possible. But some of these can just be shared by being the same library rather than multiple implementations of a standardised library. Anyway, wrt FFI v1.0, we seem to agree that we leave Pools out and first gather than experience with them. Cheers, Manuel _______________________________________________ FFI mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
