[MLton] ffi improvements

[Daniel C. Wang]

Oh, BTW is there any reason not to adopt the convention of putting all 
unsafe interfaces into an Unsafe structure. i.e.

MLton.Unsafe.Pointer rather than just MLton.Pointer

Just to make sure the user knows what to expect. :)

Stephen Weeks wrote:

>>I suspect what I want is a slightly more refined interface for the
>>user. I don't see any problem having a Pointer type in the compiler,
>>but I would expect more type-checking in the exposed user
>>interfaces.
> 
> 
> I agree completely.  I was worried that you had a reason for compiler
> mods.  Yes, someone should build a nicer front end to the pointer
> stuff using phantom types or whatever to get better type safety.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MLton mailing list
> MLton@mlton.org
> http://www.mlton.org/mailman/listinfo/mlton