Here's a library issue. The conclusion of this conversation was that H98 already specifies option (1) below, and I will clarify that in revising the library report. Nevertheless, the absence of a simple way to read-modify-write a file is a pain in the neck. Question: should one of our extended-IO libraries support a version of openFile that guarantees option (2)? Simon -----Original Message----- From: Manuel M. T. Chakravarty [mailto:chak@cse.unsw.edu.au] Sent: 05 September 2000 02:10 To: haskell@haskell.org Subject: lazy file reading in H98 In an assignment, in my class, we came across a lack of specification of the behaviour of `Prelude.readFile' and `IO.hGetContents' and IMHO also a lack of functionality. As both operations read a file lazily, subsequent writes to the same file are potentially disastrous. In this assignment, the file was used to make a Haskell data structure persistent over multiple runs of the program - ie, readFile fname >>= return . read at the start of the program and writeFile fname . show at the end of the program. For certain inputs, where the data structure stored in the file was only partially used, the file was overwritten before it was fully read. H98 doesn't really specify what happens in this situation. I think, there are two ways to solve that: (1) At least, the definition should say that the behaviour is undefined if a program every writes to a file that it has read with `readFile' or `hGetContents' before. (2) Alternatively, it could demand more sophistication from the implementation and require that upon opening of a file for writing that is currently semi-closed, the implementation has to make sure that the contents of the semi-closed file is not corrupted before it is fully read.[1] In the case that solution (1) is chosen, I think, we should also have something like `strictReadFile' (and `hStrictGetContents') which reads the whole file before proceeding to the next IO action. Otherwise, in situations like in the mentioned assignment, you have to resort to reading the file character by character, which seems very awkward. So, overall, I think solution (2) is more elegant. Cheers, Manuel [1] On Unix-like (POSIX?) systems, unlinking the file and then opening the writable file would be sufficient. On certain legacy OSes, the implementation would have to read the rest of the file into memory before creating a new file under the same name.