On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Simon Marlow <marlo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16/07/2012 13:18, Gábor Lehel wrote: > >> With apologies for repeating myself, isn't the fact that unsafeRead >> and unsafeWrite can access arbitrary memory locations a problem? Does >> memory safety not matter? > > > The definition of safety in Safe Haskell requires type safety, it does not > impose any extra restrictions on what you can do in the IO monad. In the > terminology we use in the paper, the latter is called a "security" > requirement, as distinct from safety. Since security requirements tend to > be application-specific, it wouldn't make sense to build one into Safe > Haskell itself. Safe Haskell is the mechanism on which you can implement > whatever security policy you need - there's an example in the paper of > defining a restricted IO monad for use by untrusted code. > > Cheers, > Simon
I see, thanks. I'll have to read the paper. -- Your ship was caught in a monadic eruption. _______________________________________________ Haskell-platform mailing list Haskell-platform@projects.haskell.org http://projects.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-platform
