On 25 June 2004 11:30, Daan Leijen wrote:
> Is there anyone who knows why "atomicModifyIORef" has type:
>
> IORef a -> (a -> (a, b)) -> IO b(1)
>
> Instead of:
>
> IORef a -> (a -> a) -> IO a (2)
>
>
> It seems to me that returning the old value is always good
W liście z pią, 25-06-2004, godz. 12:30 +0200, Daan Leijen napisał(a):
> It seems to me that returning the old value is always good
> enough right? Here is an implementation of "atomicModifyIORef"
> with the current type in terms of a function "proposedModifyIORef" with
> type (2).
>
> atomicMod
Is there anyone who knows why "atomicModifyIORef" has type:
IORef a -> (a -> (a, b)) -> IO b (1)
Instead of:
IORef a -> (a -> a) -> IO a (2)
It seems to me that returning the old value is always good
enough right? Here is an implementation of "atomicModifyIORef"
wi
