On 2010-08-03 15:23 -0700, John Meacham wrote: > It is more an accident of ghc's design than anything, the same mechanism > that allowed threads to call back into the runtime also allowed them to > be non blocking so the previously used 'safe' and 'unsafe' terms got > re-used. personally, I really don't like those terms, they are > non-descriptive in terms of what they actually mean and presuppose a RTS > similar to ghcs current design. 'reentrant' and 'blocking' which could > be specified independently would be better and would be more > future-proof against changes in the RTS or between compilers.
I thought "safe" meant "the foreign function is allowed to call Haskell functions", which seems to not have anything to do with whether the function is re-entrant (a very strong condition). -- Nick Bowler, Elliptic Technologies (http://www.elliptictech.com/) _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
