RE: FFI, safe vs unsafe

On 11 April 2006 17:49, Aaron Denney wrote:

On 2006-04-11, Ross Paterson wrote:

...

On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 09:13:00AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:

...

- the default should be... concurrent reentrant, presumably, because that is the safest. (so we need to invert the notation).

I think the name "concurrent" has a similar problem to "safe": it reads as an instruction to the implementation, rather than a declaration by the programmer of the properties of a particular function; as Wolfgang put it, "this function might spend a lot of time in foreign lands".

I'd like to second this.

I agree. So other suggestions? longrunning? mightblock or mayblock? I don't much like 'nonreentrant', it's a bit of a mouthful. Any other suggestions for that? nocallback? Cheers, Simon