On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 06:35:55PM -0500, David Roundy wrote:
> then I wouldn't have a guarantee that strcat isn't specialized for
> writeable Ptrs, in which case it might have the result of modifying a
> pointer when I don't want it to. Admittedly, this isn't a likely scenario,
> but when I have the typechecker check something, I'd like it to give me a
> guarantee, with the usual caveat that certain "unsafe" functions aren't
> called. Does the RULES pragma fall in that "unsafe" category?
RULES are in the very unsafe category. you can cause the compiler itself
to bottom out using them.
John
--
John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
Haskell@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
