17 Oct
2002
17 Oct
'02
6:23 p.m.
Simon Marlow wrote:
I'd hoped that blockFinalizers would be useful for defining other primitives but since it won't even work for GHC, I agree that PVar will meet most of our needs. (An even simpler design might be to extend our IORef implementations with 'atomicallyModifyIORef'.)
So, is this a design that we could agree on?
I like it. I'd vote for 'atomicModifyIORef' rather than a new PVar type, though.
Yes, I think I would too. So that's the end of PVars. Just to check, is there any problem implementing atomicModifyIORef :: IORef a -> (a -> (a,b)) -> IO b? (Especially for NHC?) Because that's the type I would like it to have. I can see a number of applications for this function . .