Re: FFI, safe vs unsafe

On 3/29/06, Simon Marlow <simonmar@microsoft.com> 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. -- Taral <taralx@gmail.com> "You can't prove anything." -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem