Hi Kili, On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 10:54 PM, Matthias Kilian <k...@outback.escape.de> wrote:
> Well, it's of course more elegant, but it would also mean that > everytime a new pledge promise will be introduced or an existing > one removed, this type has to be changed. I don't know how stable > the set of promises of pledge(2) are, but it feels like a change > like this should be deferred until after 5.9. I tend to agree, but on the other hand. Hmm, I guess you did this as you've been motivated to pledge some of haskell-based binaries you maintain packages for? If so, then with your approach if some promise is removed and you use it in package binary, then you will not find this by building the package but only by running it (EINVAL return value from pledge). On the other hand if you do this more type-constrained way (like I non-perfectly try), then you will find this kind of issues just by compiling the package -- so wil it save your time or not? :-) Anyway, sure, I've thought about writing hs-pledge myself, but just after 5.9 to see how the interface evolve so you are really quick on this, kudos to you! > ps: at least the "audio" "drm" and "vmm" promises are missing in > your diff, so now we know how old your installation is ;-) *red face here* :-) -- hmm, I'm too lazy to do cvs -> git/fossil sync here that often, I keep whole tree in git (and one branch in fossil) since I still work on SR-RAID1C and both are more convenient for me than plain anon-CVS. Still learning how to do this properly... Thanks, Karel
