| FWIW, I agree with you, and I don't have any objections to changing it
| (but Simon P.J. might).
I doubt I'd have an objection. Want to make a concrete proposal to the
libraries list? I didn't get exactly what it was from your messages.
Simon
___
Ross Paterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] cryptically writes:
Shouldn't IOError be identified with IOException rather
than Exception?
I had to grovel through the code to understand what this question
means.
Well, you could have grovelled through the documentation instead :-)
Personally I'm not completely happy with the design, the
IOError==Exception thing is a bit strange. But most of the
complication
arises if you try to mix the two interfaces to exceptions (IO and
Exception) - if you stick to the Exception interface then
the design is
quite
Shouldn't IOError be identified with IOException rather than Exception?
___
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
Ross Paterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] cryptically writes:
Shouldn't IOError be identified with IOException rather than Exception?
I had to grovel through the code to understand what this question
means. It seems that GHC.IOBase contains these definitions:
type IOError = Exception
data
