Axel Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote,
> the discussion on ForeignPtrs without finalizers didn't come to a
> conclusion. I specifically need the nullForeignPtr which was easy enough
> with the FFI of GHC 5.04:
>
> newForeignPtr nullPtr (return ())
The discussion came to a conclusion with
ne
> the discussion on ForeignPtrs without finalizers didn't come to a
> conclusion. I specifically need the nullForeignPtr which was easy enough
> with the FFI of GHC 5.04:
> [...]
> do I have to create a dummy C function?
Yes, create a dummy C function.
(Actually, you could use 'free' since it doe
Hi,
the discussion on ForeignPtrs without finalizers didn't come to a
conclusion. I specifically need the nullForeignPtr which was easy enough
with the FFI of GHC 5.04:
newForeignPtr nullPtr (return ())
Judging from the source code of GHC 6.0,
newForeignPtr nullPtr nullFunPtr
will lead to a
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
> [ newForeignPtr / addForeignPtrFinalizer argument order ]
> This is the last outstanding issue. Shall we swap? I am torn. The
> swapped argument order seems more appropriate, but it will break
> code. Shall we have one more breakage before it's all frozen?
I think th
