On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 17:36 -0400, Robert Dockins wrote: > Perhaps I should be more clear. When I said "advanced" above I meant "any > use > whereby you treat a file as random access, read/write storage, or do any kind > of directory manipulation (including deleting and or renaming files)". Lazy > I/O (as it currently stands) doesn't play very nice with those use cases.
Indeed, it can't be used in that case. > I agree generally with the idea that lazy I/O is good. The problem is that > it > is a "leaky abstraction"; details are exposed to the user that should ideally > be completely hidden. Unfortunately, the leaks aren't likely to get plugged > without pretty tight operating system support, which I suspect won't be > happening anytime soon. Yes it is leaky. > Well, AFAIK, the behavior is officially undefined, which is my real beef. I > agree that it _should_ throw an exception. Ah, I had thought it was defined to simply truncate. It being undefined isn't good. It seems that it would be straightforward to define it to have the truncation behaviour. If Haskell-prime gets imprecise exceptions then that could be changed. Duncan _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
