Hello Jacques, Wednesday, May 31, 2006, 5:33:39 PM, you wrote:
encodePtr :: (Binary a, Integral size) => a -> IO (ForeignPtr x, size) encodePtrLE :: (Binary a, Integral size) => a -> IO (ForeignPtr x, size) encodePtrBitAligned :: (Binary a, Integral size) => a -> IO (ForeignPtr x, size) encodePtrBitAlignedLE :: (Binary a, Integral size) => a -> IO (ForeignPtr x, size)
Am I the only one who finds this encoding-of-types in the _name_ of a function quite distateful? There is no type safety being enforced here, no ensuring one will not be encoding a Ptr one way and decoding it another. Why not use Haskell's type system to help you there?
i misunderatood you when i wrote previous message. now that i can say: you are right. but on practice this means more text typing and coercion. especially when we go to ForeignPtrs. moreover, in most cases, imho, data encoded by 'encodePtr*', will go to the FFI libraries, so we can't use typechecking anyway i'm not against your idea, you absolutely right that this will be more Haskell way, but can this be implemented without additional complications for library users? -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com