On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Attila Lendvai <att...@lendvai.name> wrote: > - for me it seems pretty ad-hoc why this one definition is included > and the other C stdlib definitions are not. > > - if we want to include and support size_t in the CFFI contract, then > why in cffi-libffi? keep in mind that it requires groveling, which > is quite a heavy dependency that CFFI proper doesn't require at > this point.
I suppose it was convenient for Liam. I agree it doesn't belong there. Liam, is it too much of a hassle to move the size_t grovelling to gsll? (If it is, maybe we can figure out something else.) > - why in the keyword package? (and it's another discussion why :int > and other standard C definitions (not to be confused with stdlib.h) > are in the keyword package, but i won't pursuit that argument at > this point in time) Re the standard CFFI types: convenience. > maybe we want to open a new ASDF system for the C stdlib that would > depend on the groveler and accommodate for C stdlib definitions like > errno, size_t, etc? Maybe. Osicat sort of plays that role right now. It has size_t, and it has a bunch of errno functionality. (I don't remember if those are exported or anything.) Should I make a bugfix release for Zach to test? -- Luís Oliveira http://kerno.org/~luis/
