| >> For that | >> matter, do you want to keep .NET code around for future reference or | >> would someone (say, me) be able to clean that up as well? | > | > You mean the ILX stuff, or foreign import dotnet? ILX I think is | > dead, | > I'm not so sure about foreign import dotnet. | | I actually meant both. In a patch from 04 October (this year), with | the name beginning "Remove ILX from the GHC altogether ..." Simon | Peyton-Jones removed ILX stuff from the Haskell-code in the compiler: | M ./compiler/main/CodeOutput.lhs -27 | M ./compiler/main/DriverPhases.hs -4 | M ./compiler/main/DynFlags.hs -4 +1 | M ./compiler/stgSyn/CoreToStg.lhs -13 | M ./compiler/typecheck/TcForeign.lhs -3 +1 | In a message you sent on 18 May 2005 to the FFI mailing list (at | http://www.mail-archive.com/ffi@haskell.org/msg01814.html), in | reference to the FFI syntax "foreign type..." you mentioned the | experiment to have GHC generate code for .NET. (I am not sure what | you meant--maybe bytecode, so the .NET-FFI is still live?)
There are several bits of ".net" code in GHC. The ILX route is definitely dead at the moment, and as you say I removed it. But in principle being able to "foreign import" a .net procedure is a different matter, not necessarily tied up with ILX. However I don't think that it is working either, though Sigbjorn did some work on it a year or two ago. Sadly, the whole .net thing remains orphaned in GHC, with no one to love and look after it. Simon _______________________________________________ Cvs-ghc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
