Manuel M T Chakravarty wrote:
George Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
Simon Marlow wrote
PS. I'm sorry to keep banging on about this. Ultimately it doesn't
really matter to me that much, since I only really use mallocForeignPtr.
I guess I was just intrigued to see if the problem
I agree that it's extremely unsatisfactory, but it seems the best
option (to me) of defining it is not going to be accepted. So at
least it would be better if GHC's documentation said We implement
the FFI while Hugs and NHC's said We implement the FFI with the
caveat that finalizers may
I have to say that, given Simon's patch, I am inclined to revert
back to the old API for foreign pointers.
I don't think such a change should be made unless Malcolm and I are
able to implement it.
I'm not yet convinced that Simon's patch is as easy or correct as it
seems and will not be
Alastair Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
I have to say that, given Simon's patch, I am inclined to revert
back to the old API for foreign pointers.
I don't think such a change should be made unless Malcolm and I are
able to implement it.
I'm not yet convinced that Simon's patch is
PS: Is everybody going to be at PLI'02? Then, we could
discuss this face to face.
Manuel
___
FFI mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ffi
