Alastair Reid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > > I'd propose to > > > > * add `newForeignPtr_', > > * reverse the argument order to `newForeignPtr', and > > * reverse the argument order to `addForeignPointerFinalizer' > > (for consistency). > > I agree with adding newForeignPtr_. (Presumably the report would define > newForeignPtr in terms of newForeignPtr_ and addForeignPtrFinalizer.) > > I'd prefer to avoid swapping the argument order because of code breakage.
I think, we all agree on adding `newForeignPtr_' (so, I'll add that). The reason why I suggested reversing the argument order is that newForeignPtr_ :: Ptr a -> IO (ForeignPtr a) and with *reversed* arguments also newForeignPtr myFinalizer :: Ptr a -> IO (ForeignPtr a) In other words, it seem much more likely that one would partially apply `newForeignPtr' to a finaliser than to a pointer that is to be finalised. But this is a minor point. Manuel _______________________________________________ FFI mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi