[Haskell] ANNOUNCING: The Haskell Bookstore
simonmar at microsoft.com
Fri Jun 25 07:14:26 EDT 2004
On 25 June 2004 11:30, Daan Leijen wrote:
> Is there anyone who knows why "atomicModifyIORef" has type:
> IORef a -> (a -> (a, b)) -> IO b (1)
> Instead of:
> IORef a -> (a -> a) -> IO a (2)
> It seems to me that returning the old value is always good
> enough right? Here is an implementation of "atomicModifyIORef"
> with the current type in terms of a function "proposedModifyIORef"
> with type (2).
> atomicModifyIORef :: IORef a -> (a -> (a,b)) -> IO b
> atomicModifyIORef ref f
> = do old <- proposedModifyIORef ref (fst . f)
> return (snd (f old))
Yes, but in your version you apply f to the old value twice, potentially
duplicating an expensive computation.
atomicModifyIORef isn't part of the FFI spec, BTW.
More information about the FFI