Proposed change to ForeignPtr
Manuel M T Chakravarty
chak at cse.unsw.edu.au
Sun Aug 11 02:11:35 EDT 2002
Alastair Reid <alastair at reid-consulting-uk.ltd.uk> wrote,
> > What do you expect to happen if the finaliser calls a foreign
> > exported function?
> Good question.
> I do not expect that to work on any platform that has difficulty
> implementing newForeignPtr (because you could use it to implement
> I don't know if it would be likely to work on GHC.
SimonM, what do you think?
> I think the spec should say that it is an error or undefined
> depending on whether GHC supports reentrant finalizers or not.
IMHO, it's a nice feature to have. I understand that the
spec can't require it, as systems without preemptive threads
can't implement it. However, it would be a pity if the new
interfaces would mean that even systems that feature
preemptive threads can't have it.
> > That's a tricky one. From the standards point of view, I am
> > actually *very* reluctant to introduce new names. On the other
> > hand, reusing the old names will lead to a couple of unhappy emails
> > from people using the old interface again.
> But only a couple I conjecture.
I read this as you would also (= like me) be in favour of
keeping the old names. Right?
More information about the FFI