Re: FFI, safe vs unsafe

On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 07:32 -0600, Taral wrote:

On 3/29/06, Simon Marlow wrote:

...

If we were to go down this route, we have to make reentrant the default: 'unsafe' is so-called for a good reason, you should be required to write 'unsafe' if you're doing something unsafe. So I'd suggest

unsafe concurrent unsafe concurrent -- the hard one {- nothing -}

Can I suggest "sef" in this? Most cases of "unsafe" are actually claims that the call is side-effect free.

c2hs uses the keyword "pure" for this purpose, which I rather like. c2hs transforms: {# call pure foo_bar #} into a call plus a foreign import with the "unsafe" tag. Duncan