On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Simon Marlow <marlo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> So I'm all for deprecating 'block' in favor of 'mask'. However what do >> we call 'unblock'? 'unmask' maybe? However when we have: >> >> mask $ mask $ unmask x >> >> and these operations have the counting nesting levels semantics, >> asynchronous exception will not be unmasked in 'x'. However I don't >> currently know of a nicer alternative. > > But that's the semantics you wanted, isn't it? Am I missing something?
Yes I like the nesting semantics that Twan proposed. But with regard to naming, I think the name 'unmask' is a bit misleading because it doesn't unmask asynchronous exceptions. What it does is remove a layer of masking so to speak. I think the names of the functions should reflect the nesting or stacking behavior. Maybe something like: addMaskingLayer :: IO a -> IO a removeMaskingLayer :: IO a -> IO a nrOfMaskingLayers :: IO Int However I do find those a bit long and ugly... regards, Bas _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
