Alastair Reid wrote:
[snip]
I maintain that it is better to specify something simple and for GHC
to document that it goes beyond the specification just as it does for
unboxed types and the like.
I don't believe it's at all simple to specify that Haskell-land may not
be invoked at any time
Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
George Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
Simon Marlow wrote
PS. I'm sorry to keep banging on about this. Ultimately it doesn't
really matter to me that much, since I only really use mallocForeignPtr.
I guess I was just intrigued to see if the problem
I agree that it's extremely unsatisfactory, but it seems the best
option (to me) of defining it is not going to be accepted. So at
least it would be better if GHC's documentation said We implement
the FFI while Hugs and NHC's said We implement the FFI with the
caveat that finalizers may
George Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
Simon Marlow wrote
PS. I'm sorry to keep banging on about this. Ultimately it doesn't
really matter to me that much, since I only really use mallocForeignPtr.
I guess I was just intrigued to see if the problem was really as
difficult as we'd
