Dnia pią 25. lipca 2003 16:52, Dean Herington napisał:
> John's first suggested alternative above seems very appealing to me, as it
> seems neatly to fix the fundamental design flaw in `errno`: that
> determining the success/failure of a system call is separated from the call
> itself. I'm surprised more sentiment in its favor has not shown up. What
> are the disadvantages of such a solution?
That you usually wrap functions which set errno in higher order functions
which translate it to exceptions (there are such functions ready in FFI
libraries), so it doesn't matter how it's implemented under the hood. And the
current mechanism, with the change for threads, is simpler.
--
__("< Marcin Kowalczyk
\__/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
^^ http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/
_______________________________________________
FFI mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
