Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > On 28-Jan-2003, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm implementing the latest hs_init()/hs_exit() interface in GHC, and > > came across an ambiguity or omission in the spec. We're clear that this > > sequence should be allowed: > > > > hs_init(..) > > hs_init(..) > > hs_exit() > > hs_exit() > > > > but what about > > > > hs_init(..) > > hs_exit() > > hs_init(..) > > hs_exit() > > > > That is, should the Haskell system be able to start itself up again > > after shutting down? It looks like this is desirable from a modularity > > viewpoint: eg. a C program initialises library A which uses Haskell > > internally, then de-initialises library A, then initialises library B > > which also uses Haskell internally. > > > > Unfortunately, this is going to require quite a bit of extra work in GHC > > to get right, and it looks like I'm going to have to examine a lot of > > code to make sure it is "double-init-safe". Thoughts? > > FWIW, getting this sort of thing to work properly with the Mercury > implementation would also be quite a lot of work. > > Still, I do think that this sort of thing should be supported. > Sometimes standards should serve to advance the state of the art, > rather than merely standardizing on the flaws of existing > implementations, and I think this is one of those time.s
Ok. I will add to the spec that complete de-initialisation followed (re)initialisation should be supported. Cheers, Manuel _______________________________________________ FFI mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi