5 Jul
2012
5 Jul
'12
2:28 p.m.
On Thu, 5 Jul 2012, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
From the maintainance point of view, this would become easier if I had *.Unsafe modules rather than the *.Safe ones. But this is a signficant restructuring and the only reason to do it would be to support SafeHaskell.
I would prefer to call unsafe modules Unsafe to calling safe modules Safe. Safe functionality should be the default. I also see a divergence of usages of the term "safe". It is sometimes used where "total (function)" is meant. I prefer the meaning of "safe" in the sense of SafeHaskell and unsafePerformIO.