Dean Herington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Alastair Reid wrote:
Manuel:
In other words, it seem much more likely that one would
partially apply `newForeignPtr' to a finaliser than to a
pointer that is to be finalised. But this is a minor point.
Having written some more ffi code over the last couple of days, I agree that
this is much more natural so, even though it will break all the packages I
released in the last week, I now vote for swapping the argument order.
Since this breaks code anyway, we could adopt Dean's proposal to allow lists
of arguments to newFP and addFPFinalizers without making things worse. I
don't think we should do this though since I believe they would always be
used with singleton or empty arguments and because the list-based versions
can be trivially added with a foldM if they prove useful.
Actually, I think I prefer Ashley's idea of separating the creation of a
ForeignPtr from the addition of a FinalizerPtr. So how about:
newForeignPtr :: Ptr a - IO (ForeignPtr a)
addForeignPtrFinalizer :: FinalizerPtr a - ForeignPtr a - IO ()
newForeignPtrWithFinalizer :: FinalizerPtr a - Ptr a - IO (ForeignPtr a)
newForeignPtrWithFinalizer f p = do p' - newForeignPtr p
addForeignPtrFinalizer f p'
return p'
This is what is in RC 11, just with other function names.
Manuel
___
FFI mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
