[m-rev.] for (possibly post-commit) review: simplify the creation of .int files

[Zoltan Somogyi]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 15:17:29 +0000 (UTC), Julien Fischer <jfischer at opturion.com> wrote:
> > +            % XXX ITEM_LIST This looks like a lost opportunity to me,
> > +            % because the only foreign types that *need* the same treatment
> > +            % as equivalence types are foreign types that are bigger than
> > +            % one word in size. These should be extremely rare, so it should
> > +            % be ok to require programmers to signal them with a specific
> > +            % attribute on the foreign type definition.
> 
> We do not necessarily know if a foreign type is going to be larger than a word
> in size, since that can vary depending on the target platform  For example:
> 
>     :- pragma foreign_type("C", foo, "int64_t").
> 
> I think the most useful additional annotation we could have on foreign types,
> would be one that allowed their size (or at least an upper bound on their size)
> to be specified.

It seems you and I are in agreement, but I don't know whether you meant
the above to be a request for a clarification of the comment, and if so,
in what respect.

> > +%---------------------%
> > +
> > +    % Give a type constructor's type definitions from the implementation
> 
> s/Give/Given/

I will put this into my next diff.

> The change looks fine otherwise.

Thank you.

Did any issues come up since I committed this diff and its successor?

Zoltan.