On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 10:08:04AM -0800, Donn Cave wrote: > Quoth "Serge D. Mechveliani" <mech...@botik.ru>, > [ ... why in Haskell instead of FFI ... ] > > > Because it is a direct and the simplest approach. Why does one need a > > foreign language, if all the needed functions are in the standard > > Haskell library? > > The GHC Haskell library makes some compromises with normal I/O > functionality for the sake of its runtime thread system. As > difficult as named pipes can be in any case, they can be even > trickier in GHC Haskell for this reason. I didn't suggest an > FFI approach myself, in my previous follow-up, only because > if you haven't worked with the FFI it's a significant initial > investment, but I believe it's what I would do. (If I were > somehow compelled to used named pipes.)
Initially, I did the example by the Foreign Function Interface for C. But then, I thought "But this is unnatural! Use plainly the standard Haskell IO, it has everything". So, your advice is "return to FFI" ? ------ Sergei mech...@botik.ru _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
