| Am I right in thinking that you are proposing that we revert to | writing Haskell finalizers but that Hugs and NHC programmers would | have to avoid writing finalizers which manipulate Haskell state while | GHC would use MVars to protect that state?
Yes, that's right. It is often the case that there *is* no shared state so a Haskell finalizer is fine. But if there is, then there has to be some mechanism for atomic operations. C is one such mechanism. But there's something I'm puzzled about. Hugs does support non-pre-emptive concurrency, right? (Where can I find a description of it.) So would it not be easy to implement (non-pre-emptive) MVars? And if they existed, everything would be fine, right? We could just use Haskell finalizers as we all want. Or am I missing something. (I'm assuming that the starting point for the entire discussion is whether finalizers are written in Haskell or C. Please let me know if I missed something.) Simon _______________________________________________ FFI mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
