<div dir="ltr">On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Roman Leshchinskiy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rl@cse.unsw.edu.au" target="_blank">rl@cse.unsw.edu.au</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Is "inferred Safe" the same as being marked "Safe-Infered" on Hackage? It<br>
does say that for Data.Vector.Unboxed, for instance, but that module<br>
certainly contains unsafe functions.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think this is a haddock bug: ghc gets the inference right, haddock prints the wrong thing.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">FWIW, I went looking through the libraries and GHC does indeed come with a</div>
Trustworthy unsafePerformIO out of the box (it's in<br>
Data.Binary.Builder.Internal). Now, I'm not trying to knock the binary<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's a bit worrisome, and comes closer to *my* fears about this feature, second to people expecting "safe" to mean something more meaningful to them than "doesn't subvert the type system".</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Independent of vector, I'm against making Safe Haskell compliance a<br>
prerequisite for anything at this point. If it proves itself and if enough<br>
people start using it and relying on it - sure. But right now, it an<br>
experimental language extension with a very small user base.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Indeed; especially in light of the above about Data.Binary, it can only be considered unproven, and a Platform which took it on now would be making false assurances.</div>
<div><br></div></div>-- <br>brandon s allbery <a href="mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com" target="_blank">allbery.b@gmail.com</a><br>wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms<br>
<br>
</div>