The Revenge of Finalizers
ger at tzi.de
Thu Oct 17 06:23:26 EDT 2002
Simon Marlow wrote:
> > I'd hoped that blockFinalizers would be useful for defining other
> > primitives but since it won't even work for GHC, I agree that PVar
> > will meet most of our needs. (An even simpler design might be to
> > extend our IORef implementations with 'atomicallyModifyIORef'.)
> > So, is this a design that we could agree on?
> I like it. I'd vote for 'atomicModifyIORef' rather than a new PVar
> type, though.
Yes, I think I would too. So that's the end of PVars.
Just to check, is there any problem implementing
atomicModifyIORef :: IORef a -> (a -> (a,b)) -> IO b?
(Especially for NHC?) Because that's the type I would like it to have.
I can see a number of applications for this function . .
More information about the FFI