[haskell-llvm] Thoughts on llvm-base package structure

[Scott West]

I have actually looked at the llvm-general code, it's quite nice,
although it does raise the barrier to contributing (one must grok the
TH, which isn't the most common skill).

I would actually be pretty happy to have this better foundation living
in llvm-base/llvm-ffi! What I'm actually asking is: is there a reason
not to have the FFI by itself, separate from the higher-level wrappers
like ST/llvm-general/etc?

Regards,
Scott

On 08/13/2013 09:34 AM, Carter Schonwald wrote:
> Please actually take a look at the llvm-general code, there really isn't
> a compelling reason for it to use the ffi machinery in llvm-base, it's
> own ffi work is much nicer.   
> 
> Cheers. 
> 
> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013, Scott West wrote:
> 
>     The recent (and previous) discussions seem to indicate that the package
>     structure of LLVM on Haskell might need to be rethought.
> 
>     I'll refer to the nice justification given in the bug report:
>     https://github.com/bos/llvm/issues/61
> 
>     The general proposal was to have llvm-ffi, llvm-wrapper (how much
>     wrapping should be here I don't know), and then the higher level
>     interfaces building on top of one or the other.
> 
>     Now that we have another high-level interface (llvm-general), it seems
>     that it might be a good time to actually implement some of these ideas.
> 
>     Would there be any strong objection to splitting llvm-base into two,
>     hoping to make it easier for all the upper levels to consume?
> 
>     Regards,
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Haskell-llvm mailing list
>     Haskell-llvm at projects.haskell.org <javascript:;>
>     http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-llvm
>