Re: IO security

2002-10-04 Thread John Meacham
probably the safest (but not necesarilly the easiest) way to go about this is start with an actual type-checking tool, such as the front end to one of the compilers or hatchet http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~bjpop/hatchet.html and use it to extract every expression of type ∃a . IO a , since your 'verified

Re: Question about the notation of (# ... #)

2002-10-04 Thread Hal Daume III
This means its an unboxed tuple. See recent thread about boxed vs. unboxed. -- Hal Daume III "Computer science is no more about computers| [EMAIL PROTECTED] than astronomy is about telescopes." -Dijkstra | www.isi.edu/~hdaume On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, David Sabel wrote: > Hi, > > can somebo

Question about the notation of (# ... #)

2002-10-04 Thread David Sabel
Hi, can somebody explain what the notation (# ... #) means? For example it is used in the definition of unsafePerformIO: unsafePerformIO :: IO a -> a unsafePerformIO (IO m) = case m realWorld# of (# _, r #) -> r Thanks, David ___ Glasgow-haskell-

Re: IO security

2002-10-04 Thread Hal Daume III
>o There are functions like "unsafePerformIO". How many of these > unsafe functions exist and what are their names? Is there It depends on what you count as unsafe. There's also unsafeIOToST, which is just as unsafe (You can write unsafePerformIO using this -- see a message to the haske

IO security

2002-10-04 Thread Ch. A. Herrmann
Hi GHC users, I'm looking for secure compile and run-time methods to ensure automatically that Haskell modules cannot perform particular IO operations. Therefore, I've got some questions that might be interesting for other people using GHC as well. o There are functions like "unsafePerform