While maybe not directly related to this, for many small changes suggested to base the answer is often: go write a library and see how it works out. This is often for fairly stylistic changes to "fringe" components of base. Here we're talking about a full blown operational change to something incredibly common. If anything, I think it would have to subject to the same process - try it out, really use it anger, see what breaks and - hopefully! - what gets better. On Wed, 30 Dec 2020, at 9:18 PM, Ryan Trinkle via Libraries wrote:
I think David's suggestion may have been that withFile would still close the file at the end of the block, but would *also* close it if the handle died.
On 12/30/20 4:05 PM, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2020, Ryan Trinkle via Libraries wrote:
Although it might be nice to have a weak-reference-based alternative to withFile, I think it would be best to keep the behavior of withFile as predictable as possible (i.e. the current behavior), since closing a file can be semantically significant.
Right, if I open and close and re-open a file, it must be closed before I can re-open it.
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries