Objections to runAtomically

George Russell ger at tzi.de
Thu Oct 17 11:49:42 EDT 2002

Alastair Reid wrote:
> > However we don't really need to discuss this anyway, since I don't
> > think either runAtomically or atomicallyModifyIORef need to be in
> > the FFI standard.  I'm quite happy to leave this open.
> As usual, I disagree.  I think the FFI spec would be incomplete if it
> provided Haskell finalizers but no mechanism to write them safely.
Since we've talked about mutable state quite a lot, my suggestion would
be that we write, in addition to the FFI specification, a Mutable State
specification which documented newIORef, readIORef, writeIORef,
atomicModifyIORef (and possibly, for reasons of efficiency,
atomicModifyIORef_).  I don't think it need be very long.  It wouldn't 
have to be frozen right away; it would be good if some other working group
could be formed to carry it further, so that for example it could also
include mutable arrays.

More information about the FFI mailing list