Alastair Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > [Now that we've gotten the library specification issue out of the way, > I'd like to revive discussion of this topic. Last time we discussed > it, there seemed to be concensus that we would make a change but I > didn't get much response when I made a concrete proposal. I'd like to > resolve this promptly so that the impending Hugs release can match > what the spec says (or vice-versa...).] > > Since requiring ForeignPtr.newForeignPtr would require preemptive > concurrency (see previous discussion), I propose the following changes: [..]
I thought we have settled this already. See my appended email from three weeks ago. The only reason I haven't changed it in the spec yet is that I wanted to give people time to object. Nobody has. So, I would deem this accepted (reusing the old function names btw). Manuel -=- Subject: Re: Proposed change to ForeignPtr From: Manuel M T Chakravarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 23:00:22 +1000 (EST) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on XEmacs 21.4.6 (Common Lisp) We seem to have a consensus on this one. We change the type of the existing functions to newForeignPtr :: Ptr a -> FunPtr (Ptr a -> IO ()) -> IO (ForeignPtr a) addForeignPtrFinalizer :: ForeignPtr a -> FunPtr (Ptr a -> IO ()) -> IO () For GHC, I propose to put the closure-based versions into an extra module (that's easy enough with the hierarchical libraries). This makes changing over old code easier, as it merely requires to alter the import and not all occurences of the functions. Any objections? Cheers, Manuel _______________________________________________ FFI mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi _______________________________________________ FFI mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
