7 Nov
2014
7 Nov
'14
3:43 p.m.
Adding the other variants seems to make sense to me.
TVar has its low-level definition in GHC.Conc, so it is available to base
to define.
-Edward
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:02 PM, John Lato
I find it hard to believe that users who understand weak refs would have trouble understanding this class, but that's fine. If you think a bunch of monomorphic variants are better I don't want to argue the point.
It's a definite need though, since otherwise users have to define these by hand, so +1.
Could we also please add versions for the stm types? I've needed at least one of them in the past.