Simon Marlow wrote: > > > 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. Yes, I think I would too. So that's the end of PVars.
Just to check, is there any problem implementing atomicModifyIORef :: IORef a -> (a -> (a,b)) -> IO b? (Especially for NHC?) Because that's the type I would like it to have. I can see a number of applications for this function . . _______________________________________________ FFI mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
