mechanisms seems a bit strange to me :-)
Regards
--
Adrian Hey
___
FFI mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
and start thinking like C programmer :-)
Regards
--
Adrian Hey
___
FFI mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
On Wednesday 11 Feb 2004 9:55 am, Adrian Hey wrote:
Actually, looking at the ffi again I see there is something similar
for CStrings already, but not for arrays in general. Is this an
oversight or a deliberate decision?
Oops, well I guess it's needed for CStrings if they're not
necessarily
as they
are because we need to hang on to the entire list in order to
calculate it's length :-(
Regards
--
Adrian Hey
On Tuesday 23 Mar 2004 12:51 am, Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 05:55, Sven Panne wrote:
Once upon a time, I wrote:
Adrian Hey wrote:
[...] I think
(informally) on what extensions they were going to implement.
Regards
--
Adrian Hey
___
FFI mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
forsee any circumstances where I would be likely to do
that :-), but it seems sensible to be consistent about order of Int and
Ptr arguments, as you suggest.
Regards
--
Adrian Hey
___
FFI mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo
