> Simon Marlow:
> > [Lazy I/O] is nice, but it introduces too many problems. What
> > happens to any I/O errors encountered by the lazy I/O? They have to
> > be discarded, which means you can't effectively use lazy I/O for
> > robust applications anyway.
>
> Surely they are thrown as exceptions which can then be manipulated
> in pure code using
>
> mapExceptions :: (Exception -> Exception) -> (a -> a)
>
> and caught in the IO monad using catch?
No, the report clearly states that they are discarded.
We could perhaps have our own versions of the lazy I/O operations which
throw exceptions, but this in itself is problematic because these kind
of exceptions would be asynchronous in nature. If lazy I/O is allowed
to raise exceptions, then we have a situation where evaluating anything
can raise an I/O exception. In theory this shouldn't be a problem - we
all ought to be writing asynchronous-excpetion-safe code anyway to
protect against StackOverflow, but an I/O exception is often one that
you want to handle gracefully and recover from. I feel distinctly
uncomfortable about I/O exceptions being thrown by pure code, and even
more uncomfortable about asynchronous I/O exceptions.
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
