On 12/9/06, Udo Stenzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You wouldn't need a Typeable context anyway; what's biting you is that
Dynamic is not one of the primitive types that can pass across the FFI.
There are good reasons for that and unsafeCoerce certainly cannot
invalidate them.
You want a StablePtr.
I'm using StablePtrs already, what made you assume I wasn't using them?
> would the use of unsafeCoerce be dangerous?
If you have to ask, then yes.
The name of the function makes it clear, it is unsafe, but it is still
used in many cases. I just wanted to know if it was dangerous is this
concrete example.
Taral gave a good reason
-Udo
--
"Never confuse motion with action." -- Ernest Hemingway
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFexJhc1ZCC9bsOpURAsoCAJ9wSVhSY5+3sYAV0cRwKi7E3QHTvgCfVbVB
GiVZSrY28i5FJUs+V1g1I34=
=MSt3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
