On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 09:39:44PM +0100, Claus Reinke wrote:
I updated the ForeignBlocking wiki page with what I believe is the current state of this proposal; see
didn't I mention that "concurrent" may be inappropriate and misleading, and that I think it is bad practice to rely on the programmer annotating the dangerous cases, instead of the safe cases?
I think dangerous is a misleading term here. you are already using the FFI, all bets are off. and it is not really dangerous to accidentally hold up your VM when you didn't expect, it is more just a simple bug. Unsafe or dangerous means potentially leading to undefined behavior, not just incorrect behavior or we'd have to label 2 as unsafe becaues you might have meant to write 3. :)
wouldn't the safe approach be to assume that the foreign call may do anything, unless the programmer explicitly tells you about what things it won't do (thus taking responsibility).
I think the worse problem will be all the libraries that are only tested on ghc that suddenly get very poor performance or don't compile at all when attempted elsewhere. However, the 'nonreentrant' case actually is dangerous in that it could lead to undefined behavior which is why that one was not on by default. John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈