On Monday 08 Nov 2004 9:53 pm, Keean Schupke wrote: > What did you think of the code example given where the one-shot nature is > provided by a 'C' wrapper around the FFI function. I think this is the best > solution...
As a pragmatic solution to this (and only this) particular problem it's OK. But let's not pretend the real problem has gone way (or just doesn't exist) as a result of this. There are many reasons why people might need top-level TWIs. You asked for a simple example and I provided one, that's all. Also note that Roberts solution still requires the use of a top level mutable variable. I take it the position of those who object to such things is not.. "Top level mutable variables are a very very bad thing and should never ever be used (Errm..well unless they're really necessary, in which case you should use C)." Now that would be strange. I would call that "militant denial". As a side note (not specifically directed at you) I would also like folk to take note that the mutable variable used in Roberts solution is top level, but is NOT global. As I have observed in an earlier post, the thread title chosen by the OP is a rather unfortunate choice of words IMO. I wish people stop talking about "global variables". Nobody is advocating the use of global mutable variables. I sure hope I'm not going to have to repeat this (yet again!). Actually, I know I'm not going to have to repeat this yet again because I'm going to make this is my last post on this thread. Regards -- Adrian Hey _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
