> > Actually in the current implementation the finalizers are not > > attached to the ForeignPtr at all: it's the other way around. > > Ah, I see. > > Fortunately, I don't think my sketched implementation depended on such > an attachment since it added an attachment of its own. The design is > intended to sit on top of the current GHC implementation (i.e., one > with Haskell finalizers and no control over the order they are run).
Yes, you're right. We could do it that way. I'm also concerned about adding the extra overhead though, especially if this is something that will rarely be needed. Are we sure this is what we want? At least I can optimise mallocForeignPtr again and avoid registering the finalizer until the first call to addForeignPtrFinalizer. Cheers, Simon _______________________________________________ FFI mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi