On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Mark Lentczner
wrote:
> At the risk of throwing more wood on the fire here - I went back and looked
> at Vector and now I see that there are large set of ".Safe" variants that
> are no more than re-exports of the exact same functions from the non .Safe
> versions
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Mark Lentczner
wrote:
> ...I went back and looked
> at Vector and now I see that there are large set of ".Safe" variants that
> are no more than re-exports of the exact same functions from the non .Safe
> versions of the modules with an extra safe haskell declarati
Mark Lentczner wrote:
> And, as Simon pointed out, the paper about SH isn't even out yet - the only
> material is the GHC manual section.
No, it has been out for a few days now. I'll repeat the link:
http://community.haskell.org/~simonmar/papers/safe-haskell.pdf
It's a very easy to read paper. I
On 15 July 2012 14:53, Yitzchak Gale wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Mark Lentczner
> wrote:
>> ...I went back and looked
>> at Vector and now I see that there are large set of ".Safe" variants that
>> are no more than re-exports of the exact same functions from the non .Safe
>> version
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Roman Leshchinskiy wrote:
> [...] It still uses
> "unsafe" to distinguish between functions that do bounds checking and
> those that don't. What would be the benefit of moving functions like
> unsafeIndex into a separate module (and would it be called
> Unsafe.unsaf
