On Monday 22 Dec 2003 10:13 am, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > Thanks for your reply. I'm afraid it's left me even
> > more confused about which way to go with this :-(
> >
> > If it's possible that future Haskell FFI's don't guarantee
> > that all finalisers are run then this more or less rules
> > out t
On Monday 22 Dec 2003 8:53 pm, Carl Witty wrote:
> > > Thanks for your reply. I'm afraid it's left me even
> > >
> > > more confused about which way to go with this :-(
>
> Is your problem something you could handle with a C atexit() handler?
That's a good idea. With ghc I guess this will work, a
> Assuming the weak pointers solution is the way to go, I've been
> re-aquainting myself with System.Mem.Weak and now I'm now wondering
> what is an appropriate key for each ForeignPtr.
Before we go down that route, I want to be sure that it's actually
necessary to use weak pointers. It sounds li
> > > The build output is like so:
> > [snip]
> > > Fail: does not exist
> > > Action: openFileEx
> > > Reason: No such file or directory
> > > File: base/base.haddock
> >
> > Hmmm. It's possible the gentoo ebuild is trying to 'make
> install-docs'
> > without building the docs in the first pl
Hello
On Tuesday 23 Dec 2003 9:27 am, Simon Marlow wrote:
> > Assuming the weak pointers solution is the way to go, I've been
> > re-aquainting myself with System.Mem.Weak and now I'm now wondering
> > what is an appropriate key for each ForeignPtr.
>
> Before we go down that route, I want to be s
