> I'd hoped that blockFinalizers would be useful for defining other
> primitives but since it won't even work for GHC, I agree that PVar
> will meet most of our needs. (An even simpler design might be to
> extend our IORef implementations with 'atomicallyModifyIORef'.)
>
> So, is this a design that we could agree on?
I like it. I'd vote for 'atomicModifyIORef' rather than a new PVar
type, though.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
FFI mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
