Re: [Sml-implementers] extensions to SML

[Dave B. <da...@ta...>]

At 16:03 14/09/2001, Stephen Weeks wrote:
>Here is my list of extensions to standardize, in decreasing order of 
>importance.
>
>* decent library
>* compilation management
>* FFI
>...
>
>I rate the importance of a library at least an order of magnitude above
>the rest.  

If you have a standard interface to C and a standard for compilation
management, then it becomes much easier to write libraries.  Any SML
programmer will be able to write libraries that run on any SML compiler.
That seems a "base level" that everyone on this list should aim for.

I suggest an IDL interface for the C FLI.  People should not have to write
any C themselves.  I know SML/NJ were working on this, as were the MLWorks
team.  

For compilation management, the simpler (for the programmer) the better.
The simplest I can think of is:
* A list of files, in order of compilation
* A specification of the exported features
* A list of dependent libraries (i.e. other groups).  
More advanced systems could add tools for generating this list and for
avoiding unnecessary recompilation, but the simple list could be the common
interchange format.  (Ideally the export specification would be a
signature, but that would require supporting functors and signatures as
members of signatures).

Dave.