Hello Peter,
Sunday, May 15, 2005, 4:07:28 PM, you wrote:
PS> http://research.microsoft.com/Users/simonpj/papers/marktoberdorf/
this article says that
--
some foreign procedures may cover have purelyfunctional semantics. For example,
the C sin
Bulat,
just for the record, it's not my article. Although I have the
privilege of sharing a somewhat similar name with the geniuses
around here, I didn't have any part in that text. ;-)
You were wondering about this declaration:
> foreign import ccall unsafe sin :: Float -> Float
I guess you
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 11:30 +0200, Peter Simons wrote:
> Since pure FFI calls don't have any side-effects, they are
> always safe to be called unsafely. (Yes, the choice of the
> words "safe" and "unsafe" is a bit unfortunate in the standard
> here.)
To try and undo this confusion we need to reca
Duncan Coutts writes:
> So to sumarise the pairings:
> * you _must_ make a safe call to an unsafe foreign function
> * you _may_ make an unsafe call to a safe foreign function
>
> It's a contravariance :-)
I'd use a slightly different term. Declaring a function that
needs special
Hello Peter,
Friday, May 20, 2005, 1:30:08 PM, you wrote:
PS> just for the record, it's not my article. Although I have the
PS> privilege of sharing a somewhat similar name with the geniuses
PS> around here, I didn't have any part in that text. ;-)
i answered your letter but wrote to Simon PJ
P
Bulat Ziganshin writes:
PS> Since pure FFI calls don't have any side-effects, they are
PS> always safe to be called unsafely.
> sorry, but even pure C function can call back to Haskell world and
> lead to GC.
Um, right. I said I didn't understand these things
completely either. Guess I was r
